Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.
stringlengths 74
421
| If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
stringlengths 36
192
| Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 788
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street
stringclasses 788
values | modus ponen
stringclasses 2
values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1
stringclasses 394
values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street
stringclasses 394
values | True
bool 1
class | text
stringlengths 453
800
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, hence laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone.
|
If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet
|
Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, hence laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis has a history of violent behavior, as if emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then john davis has a history of violent behavior and emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers.
|
If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then john davis has a history of violent behavior
|
Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers
|
John Davis has a history of violent behavior
|
modus ponen
|
Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers
|
John Davis has a history of violent behavior
|
Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers
|
John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis has a history of violent behavior, as if emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then john davis has a history of violent behavior and emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, thus a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.
|
If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
|
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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, thus a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, since if the baby is crying in the stroller then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene and the baby is crying in the stroller.
|
If the baby is crying in the stroller then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
The baby is crying in the stroller
|
Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is crying in the stroller
|
Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
The baby is not crying in the stroller
|
Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, since if the baby is crying in the stroller then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene and the baby is crying in the stroller.```<|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 parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, thus detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects.
|
If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
|
The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
|
Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
modus tollen
|
Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
|
Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, thus detective parker did not receive 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 dog is barking at the squirrel then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, and a bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door, therefore the dog is not barking at the squirrel.
|
If the dog is barking at the squirrel then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door
|
A bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door
|
The dog is not barking at the squirrel
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking at the squirrel
|
A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door
|
The dog is not barking at the squirrel
|
A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the squirrel then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, and a bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door, therefore 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 forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, hence a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
modus ponen
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, hence a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then laura had installed a home security system, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, which establishes that laura had installed a home security system.
|
If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then laura had installed a home security system
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
modus ponen
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then laura had installed a home security system, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, which establishes that laura had installed a home security system.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, so surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the movie is a comedy-drama
|
The movie is not a comedy-drama
|
Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
modus tollen
|
Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
The movie is a comedy-drama
|
Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, so surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, so it can be concluded that the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.
|
If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard
|
A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard
|
The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
|
A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard
|
The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
|
A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, so it can be concluded that the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, therefore emily had recently taken a self-defense course.
|
If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then emily had recently taken a self-defense course
|
The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
|
Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
|
modus ponen
|
The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
|
Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
|
The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker
|
Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, therefore emily had recently taken a self-defense course.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, thus a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard.
|
If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard
|
modus tollen
|
A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard
|
The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, thus a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, which shows that the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
|
A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, which shows that the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, as if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the baby is teething on a toy and the baby is not teething on a toy.
|
If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the baby is teething on a toy
|
The baby is not teething on a toy
|
Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
|
The baby is teething on a toy
|
Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
|
The baby is not teething on a toy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, as if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the baby is teething on a toy and the baby is not teething on a toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the nightstand then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, so the book is not on the nightstand.
|
If the book is on the nightstand then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
The book is not on the nightstand
|
modus tollen
|
The book is on the nightstand
|
A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
The book is not on the nightstand
|
A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the nightstand then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, so the book is not on the nightstand.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of identity theft then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased, therefore john davis did not have a history of identity theft.
|
If john davis had a history of identity theft then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
|
John Davis did not have a history of identity theft
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a history of identity theft
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
|
John Davis did not have a history of identity theft
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of identity theft then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased, therefore john davis did not have 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 cat is sleeping in the sun then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death, hence the cat is not sleeping in the sun.
|
If the cat is sleeping in the sun then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
|
Sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
|
The cat is not sleeping in the sun
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is sleeping in the sun
|
Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death
|
The cat is not sleeping in the sun
|
Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping in the sun then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death, hence the cat is not sleeping in the sun.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, as if a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet and no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.
|
If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
modus tollen
|
A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
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: ```A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, as if a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet and no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which shows that a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.
|
If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which shows that a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, which shows that a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.
|
If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
|
A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
|
A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
|
No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, which shows that 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|>
|
If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the book is written by a famous author, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, so it can be concluded that the book is written by a famous author.
|
If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the book is written by a famous author
|
A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
modus ponen
|
A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
The book is not written by a famous author
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the book is written by a famous author, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, so it can be concluded that the book is written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then paris is in france, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, so it can be concluded that paris is in france.
|
If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then paris is in france
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
Paris is in France
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
Paris is in France
|
Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
Paris is not in France
| 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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then paris is in france, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, so it can be concluded that paris is in france.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sky is blue then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, therefore the sky is not blue.
|
If the sky is blue then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
|
The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
|
The sky is not blue
|
modus tollen
|
The sky is blue
|
The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
|
The sky is not blue
|
The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sky is blue then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, therefore 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|>
|
If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, which shows that a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned.
|
If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
modus tollen
|
A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, which shows that a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the stroller then the book is written by a famous author, and the baby is crying in the stroller, thus the book is written by a famous author.
|
If the baby is crying in the stroller then the book is written by a famous author
|
The baby is crying in the stroller
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is crying in the stroller
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
The baby is not crying in the stroller
|
The book is not written by a famous author
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying in the stroller then the book is written by a famous author, and the baby is crying in the stroller, thus the book is written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a biography then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, and the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, hence the book is not a biography.
|
If the book is a biography then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
The book is not a biography
|
modus tollen
|
The book is a biography
|
The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
The book is not a biography
|
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 book is a biography then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, and the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, hence the book is not a biography.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, as if a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene and no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.
|
If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
modus tollen
|
A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, as if a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene and no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at 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 a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house, therefore a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.
|
If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house
|
A neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
|
modus tollen
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home
|
A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
|
A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house, therefore a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, thus the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it.
|
If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it
|
A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
|
The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it
|
modus ponen
|
A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it
|
A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it
| 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 the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, thus the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it.```<|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 drinking from a bottle then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, therefore the baby is not drinking from a bottle.
|
If the baby is drinking from a bottle then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
The baby is not drinking from a bottle
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is drinking from a bottle
|
Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
The baby is not drinking from a bottle
|
Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is drinking from a bottle then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, therefore the baby is not drinking from a bottle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and john davis was not found with a bag of cash, thus no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.
|
If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then john davis was found with a bag of cash
|
John davis was not found with a bag of cash
|
No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
|
modus tollen
|
A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
|
John Davis was found with a bag of cash
|
No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
|
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 a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and john davis was not found with a bag of cash, thus 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 laura had installed a home security system then the cat is sleeping soundly, and laura had installed a home security system, so the cat is sleeping soundly.
|
If laura had installed a home security system then the cat is sleeping soundly
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
The cat is sleeping soundly
|
modus ponen
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
The cat is sleeping soundly
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had installed a home security system then the cat is sleeping soundly, and laura had installed a home security system, so the cat is sleeping soundly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder 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 implies that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then 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
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
modus tollen
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
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 a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder 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 implies that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.
|
If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street
|
The arson did not occur on elm street
|
No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
|
modus tollen
|
A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
|
The arson occurred on Elm Street
|
No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
|
The arson did not occur on Elm Street
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's garage door was left open then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which implies that laura's garage door was not left open.
|
If laura's garage door was left open then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id
|
No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id
|
Laura's garage door was not left open
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's garage door was left open
|
A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
|
Laura's garage door was not left open
|
No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's garage door was left open then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which implies that laura's garage door was not left open.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, so laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van.
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
|
The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, so laura's neighbors did not report 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 the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, hence the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident.
|
If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
|
Surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
|
The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
|
Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
|
The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident
|
Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, hence the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed.
|
If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
|
Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed
|
Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
|
Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence 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 victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment, because if the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the sun is shining brightly in the sky and the sun is not shining brightly in the sky.
|
If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the sun is shining brightly in the sky
|
The sun is not shining brightly in the sky
|
The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment
|
The sun is shining brightly in the sky
|
The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment
|
The sun is not shining brightly in the sky
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment, because if the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the sun is shining brightly in the sky and the sun is not shining brightly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, hence the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.
|
If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
|
The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, hence the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, which establishes that the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.
|
If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
|
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 the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, which establishes that 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|>
|
If the dog is happy then the cat is black, and the cat is not black, so the dog is not happy.
|
If the dog is happy then the cat is black
|
The cat is not black
|
The dog is not happy
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is happy
|
The cat is black
|
The dog is not happy
|
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 dog is happy then the cat is black, and the cat is not black, so 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|>
|
Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, because if sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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
|
Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
|
modus tollen
|
Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
|
Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
|
Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
|
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: ```Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, because if sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the movie is a family film, and the movie is not a family film, so it can be concluded that no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.
|
If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the movie is a family film
|
The movie is not a family film
|
No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
modus tollen
|
A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
The movie is a family film
|
No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
The movie is not a family film
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the movie is a family film, and the movie is not a family film, so it can be concluded that no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, since if sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby and sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.
|
If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
modus ponen
|
Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
|
A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, since if sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby 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|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the toy then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and the baby is crawling towards the toy, which implies that a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.
|
If the baby is crawling towards the toy then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
The baby is crawling towards the toy
|
A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is crawling towards the toy
|
A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
The baby is not crawling towards the toy
|
No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the toy then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and the baby is crawling towards the toy, which implies that a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, which implies that laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident.
|
If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
|
Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
|
Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
|
modus ponen
|
Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store
|
Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
|
Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store
|
Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, which implies that laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, therefore no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.
|
If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
modus tollen
|
A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
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 a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, therefore 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 sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, so a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.
|
If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing
|
A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
modus ponen
|
Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing
|
A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing
|
No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
| 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 blood was found on emily's clothing then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, so a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and john davis did not have a history of stalking other women, so it can be concluded that laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors.
|
If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then john davis had a history of stalking other women
|
John davis did not have a history of stalking other women
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors
|
modus tollen
|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
|
John Davis had a history of stalking other women
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women
| 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 john davis had a history of stalking other women, and john davis did not have a history of stalking other women, so it can be concluded that laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, since if a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement.
|
If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
modus ponen
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement
|
A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, since if a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The car is a sedan, since if a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the car is a sedan and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction.
|
If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the car is a sedan
|
A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
The car is a sedan
|
modus ponen
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
The car is a sedan
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
|
The car is not a sedan
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is a sedan, since if a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the car is a sedan and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the bestseller list then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, and the book is on the bestseller list, so emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.
|
If the book is on the bestseller list then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
The book is on the bestseller list
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
modus ponen
|
The book is on the bestseller list
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
The book is not on the bestseller list
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the bestseller list then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, and the book is on the bestseller list, so emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's prescription medications were stolen then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, therefore laura's prescription medications were not stolen.
|
If laura's prescription medications were stolen then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
|
Officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
|
Laura's prescription medications were not stolen
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's prescription medications were stolen
|
Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
|
Laura's prescription medications were not stolen
|
Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's prescription medications were stolen then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, therefore laura's prescription medications were not stolen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, and the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement, which implies that no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard.
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
|
The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard
|
modus tollen
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard
|
The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard
|
The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, and the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement, which implies that no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not written by a famous author, because if the book is written by a famous author then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit and john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit.
|
If the book is written by a famous author then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
|
John davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
modus tollen
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not written by a famous author, because if the book is written by a famous author then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit and john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, hence no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.
|
If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
modus tollen
|
A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
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 a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, hence no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the bird is singing then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, which shows that the bird is not singing.
|
If the bird is singing then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack
|
No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack
|
The bird is not singing
|
modus tollen
|
The bird is singing
|
A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
|
The bird is not singing
|
No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the bird is singing then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, which shows that the bird is not singing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the stranger then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, and the dog is barking at the stranger, hence a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment.
|
If the dog is barking at the stranger then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
|
The dog is barking at the stranger
|
A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking at the stranger
|
A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment
|
The dog is not barking at the stranger
|
A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the stranger then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, and the dog is barking at the stranger, hence a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, because if john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest.
|
If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
|
John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
|
John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
|
Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, because if john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then john davis has a history of violent behavior, and john davis does not have a history of violent behavior, which implies that no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.
|
If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then john davis has a history of violent behavior
|
John davis does not have a history of violent behavior
|
No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
modus tollen
|
A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
John Davis has a history of violent behavior
|
No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then john davis has a history of violent behavior, and john davis does not have a history of violent behavior, which implies that no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is a memoir, as if the car is moving then the book is a memoir and the car is moving.
|
If the car is moving then the book is a memoir
|
The car is moving
|
The book is a memoir
|
modus ponen
|
The car is moving
|
The book is a memoir
|
The car is not moving
|
The book is not a memoir
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is a memoir, as if the car is moving then the book is a memoir and the car is moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, as if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then laura's jewelry box was emptied and laura's jewelry box was not emptied.
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
|
modus tollen
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
|
Laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, as if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then laura's jewelry box was emptied and laura's jewelry box was not emptied.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and john davis had bruises on his arms, which establishes that a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
John davis had bruises on his arms
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had bruises on his arms
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
John Davis did not have bruises on his arms
|
A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had bruises on his arms then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and john davis had bruises on his arms, which establishes that a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring then the bird is singing, and the bird is not singing, which implies that the cat is not purring.
|
If the cat is purring then the bird is singing
|
The bird is not singing
|
The cat is not purring
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is purring
|
The bird is singing
|
The cat is not purring
|
The bird is not singing
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring then the bird is singing, and the bird is not singing, which implies that the cat is not purring.```<|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 not found on laura's safe, as if john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death and sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.
|
If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
|
Sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
|
John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death
|
John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
|
Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
| 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 not found on laura's safe, as if john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death and sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.```<|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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, therefore a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.
|
If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, therefore a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon 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 laura's pet cat is missing then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, which shows that laura's pet cat is not missing.
|
If laura's pet cat is missing then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
Laura's pet cat is not missing
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's pet cat is missing
|
A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
Laura's pet cat is not missing
|
No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's pet cat is missing then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, which shows that laura's pet cat 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|>
|
A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, as if a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.
|
If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
modus ponen
|
A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, as if a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the book is a collection of short stories, and the book is not a collection of short stories, which shows that no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.
|
If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the book is a collection of short stories
|
The book is not a collection of short stories
|
No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
|
modus tollen
|
A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
|
The book is a collection of short stories
|
No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
|
The book is not a collection of short stories
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the book is a collection of short stories, and the book is not a collection of short stories, which shows that no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is hot and humid then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, and the weather is hot and humid, so fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.
|
If the weather is hot and humid then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
The weather is hot and humid
|
Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
modus ponen
|
The weather is hot and humid
|
Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
The weather is not hot and humid
|
No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is hot and humid then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, and the weather is hot and humid, so fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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, thus a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat.
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
|
modus tollen
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
|
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 a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat 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, thus a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, which implies that a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, which implies that a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, which establishes that a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily.
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily
|
modus ponen
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, which establishes that a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's pet cat is missing then water is h2o, and water is not h2o, thus laura's pet cat is not missing.
|
If laura's pet cat is missing then water is h2o
|
Water is not h2o
|
Laura's pet cat is not missing
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's pet cat is missing
|
Water is H2O
|
Laura's pet cat is not missing
|
Water is not H2O
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's pet cat is missing then water is h2o, and water is not h2o, thus laura's pet cat 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 the movie is a comedy then the baby is teething, and the baby is not teething, so the movie is not a comedy.
|
If the movie is a comedy then the baby is teething
|
The baby is not teething
|
The movie is not a comedy
|
modus tollen
|
The movie is a comedy
|
The baby is teething
|
The movie is not a comedy
|
The baby is not teething
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a comedy then the baby is teething, and the baby is not teething, so the movie is not a comedy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was found with a bag of cash then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder, thus john davis was not found with a bag of cash.
|
If john davis was found with a bag of cash then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
Sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
|
John Davis was not found with a bag of cash
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis was found with a bag of cash
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
John Davis was not found with a bag of cash
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was found with a bag of cash then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder, thus john davis was not found with a bag of cash.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is happy then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and the dog is happy, which implies that the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker.
|
If the dog is happy then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
|
The dog is happy
|
The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is happy
|
The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
|
The dog is not happy
|
The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker
| 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 the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and the dog is happy, which implies that the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, which implies that a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox.
|
If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox
|
A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
|
A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, which implies that a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is exciting then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and the movie is exciting, which establishes that a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.
|
If the movie is exciting then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
The movie is exciting
|
A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is exciting
|
A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
The movie is not exciting
|
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 the movie is exciting then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and the movie is exciting, which establishes 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|>
|
If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, therefore the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact.
|
If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
Laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
|
The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, therefore the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, because if the movie is a thriller then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead and the movie is a thriller.
|
If the movie is a thriller then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
The movie is a thriller
|
The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a thriller
|
The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
The movie is not a thriller
|
The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, because if the movie is a thriller then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead and the movie is a thriller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, and a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, which shows that the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, and a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, which shows that the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, which establishes that laura's jewelry box was emptied.
|
If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
Laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
Laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, which establishes that laura's jewelry box was emptied.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, as if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.
|
If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
modus ponen
|
A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, as if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with blocks then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the dog is not barking at the neighbors, thus the baby is not playing with blocks.
|
If the baby is playing with blocks then the dog is barking at the neighbors
|
The dog is not barking at the neighbors
|
The baby is not playing with blocks
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is playing with blocks
|
The dog is barking at the neighbors
|
The baby is not playing with blocks
|
The dog is not barking at the neighbors
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with blocks then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the dog is not barking at the neighbors, thus the baby is not playing with blocks.```<|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 a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, so the baby is not sleeping.
|
If the baby is sleeping then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement
|
The baby is not sleeping
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is sleeping
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
The baby is not sleeping
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is sleeping then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, so the baby is not sleeping.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, since if the stolen van was registered in a fake name then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist and the stolen van was registered in a fake name.
|
If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
modus ponen
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
|
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: ```Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, since if the stolen van was registered in a fake name then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist and the stolen van was registered in a fake name.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, which implies that the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.
|
If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
|
The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, which implies that the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the bird is singing, and the bird is not singing, which establishes that a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.
|
If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the bird is singing
|
The bird is not singing
|
A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
|
modus tollen
|
A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar
|
The bird is singing
|
A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
|
The bird is not singing
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the bird is singing, and the bird is not singing, which establishes that a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.```<|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 found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, hence the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.
|
If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
|
The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
modus ponen
|
A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
|
The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, hence the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then sally is older than john, and sally is not older than john, so it can be concluded that a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.
|
If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then sally is older than john
|
Sally is not older than john
|
A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
|
modus tollen
|
A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar
|
Sally is older than John
|
A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
|
Sally is not older than John
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then sally is older than john, and sally is not older than john, so it can be concluded that a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, because if the dog is barking at the neighbors then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home and the dog is barking at the neighbors.
|
If the dog is barking at the neighbors then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home
|
The dog is barking at the neighbors
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking at the neighbors
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home
|
The dog is not barking at the neighbors
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily'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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, because if the dog is barking at the neighbors then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home and the dog is barking at the neighbors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which establishes that laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van.
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
|
A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
|
A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which establishes that laura's neighbors did not report 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 laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis, therefore laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident.
|
If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis
|
Laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis
|
Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident
|
Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis
|
Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident
|
Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis, therefore laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the phone is ringing then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, therefore the phone is not ringing.
|
If the phone is ringing then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The phone is not ringing
|
modus tollen
|
The phone is ringing
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The phone is not ringing
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the phone is ringing then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, therefore the phone is not ringing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the weather is mild and pleasant, therefore the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery.
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
|
The weather is mild and pleasant
|
The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
|
modus ponen
|
The weather is mild and pleasant
|
The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
|
The weather is not mild and pleasant
|
The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is mild and pleasant then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the weather is mild and pleasant, therefore the store's alarm system was disabled 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 stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment, hence no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment
|
The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment
|
No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
|
modus tollen
|
A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
|
The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment
|
No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
|
The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment, hence no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, and laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident, which shows that laura's social media accounts were not hacked.
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
|
Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
|
Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's social media accounts were hacked then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, and laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident, which shows that laura's social media accounts were not hacked.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and the sun is setting, so a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.
|
If the sun is setting then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
|
The sun is setting
|
A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
modus ponen
|
The sun is setting
|
A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
The sun is not setting
|
No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and the sun is setting, so a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.