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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, because if a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.
|
If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
modus ponen
|
A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
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: ```Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, because if a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, and the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions, thus surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.
|
If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
modus tollen
|
Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, and the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions, thus surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, which implies that emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder.
|
If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
|
John davis had a cache of illegal firearms
|
Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms
|
Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
|
John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms
|
Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, which implies that emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the cat then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and the baby is crawling towards the cat, therefore a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house.
|
If the baby is crawling towards the cat then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house
|
The baby is crawling towards the cat
|
A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is crawling towards the cat
|
A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
The baby is not crawling towards the cat
|
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 the baby is crawling towards the cat then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and the baby is crawling towards the cat, therefore a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, because if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone and no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.
|
If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
|
Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
|
A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, because if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone and no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a history of financial problems, since if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then john davis had a history of financial problems and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization.
|
If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then john davis had a history of financial problems
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
|
John Davis had a history of financial problems
|
modus ponen
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
|
John Davis had a history of financial problems
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
|
John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a history of financial problems, since if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then john davis had a history of financial problems and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, because if the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim.
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
|
The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
|
A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
|
A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
|
The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
|
No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, because if the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, as if the phone is ringing then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim and the phone is ringing.
|
If the phone is ringing then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
|
The phone is ringing
|
The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
|
modus ponen
|
The phone is ringing
|
The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
|
The phone is not ringing
|
The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, as if the phone is ringing then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim and the phone is 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 laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then dogs are not fish, and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, which implies that dogs are not fish.
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then dogs are not fish
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
Dogs are not fish
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
Dogs are not fish
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
Dogs are fish
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then dogs are not fish, and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, which implies that dogs are not fish.```<|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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization, hence the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause.
|
If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
|
The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
|
Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization, hence the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause.```<|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 romance novel then laura's garage door was left open, and the book is a romance novel, so laura's garage door was left open.
|
If the book is a romance novel then laura's garage door was left open
|
The book is a romance novel
|
Laura's garage door was left open
|
modus ponen
|
The book is a romance novel
|
Laura's garage door was left open
|
The book is not a romance novel
|
Laura's garage door was not left open
| 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 romance novel then laura's garage door was left open, and the book is a romance novel, so laura's garage door was 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 a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, so it can be concluded that officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.
|
If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door
|
Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
modus ponen
|
A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door
|
Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door
|
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: ```If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, so it can be concluded that officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, therefore a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned.
|
If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, therefore a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura did not have a life insurance policy, as if laura had a life insurance policy then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.
|
If laura had a life insurance policy then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home
|
A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home
|
Laura did not have a life insurance policy
|
modus tollen
|
Laura had a life insurance policy
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home
|
Laura did not have a life insurance policy
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura did not have a life insurance policy, as if laura had a life insurance policy then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home and 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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, which implies that the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail.
|
If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
|
The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
modus ponen
|
A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment
|
The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
|
The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, which implies that the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is a horror film, because if laura's prescription medications were stolen then the movie is a horror film and laura's prescription medications were stolen.
|
If laura's prescription medications were stolen then the movie is a horror film
|
Laura's prescription medications were stolen
|
The movie is a horror film
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's prescription medications were stolen
|
The movie is a horror film
|
Laura's prescription medications were not stolen
|
The movie is not a horror film
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is a horror film, because if laura's prescription medications were stolen then the movie is a horror film and laura's prescription medications were 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 detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is not barking at the mail truck, therefore detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.
|
If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the dog is barking at the mail truck
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck
|
Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
modus tollen
|
Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
The dog is barking at the mail truck
|
Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is not barking at the mail truck, therefore detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which establishes that emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
|
Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which establishes that emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the baby is playing with toys, and the baby is not playing with toys, thus no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.
|
If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the baby is playing with toys
|
The baby is not playing with toys
|
No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
modus tollen
|
A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
The baby is playing with toys
|
No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
The baby is not playing with toys
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the baby is playing with toys, and the baby is not playing with toys, thus 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|>
|
The baby is sleeping, since if the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the baby is sleeping and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home.
|
If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the baby is sleeping
|
The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
|
The baby is sleeping
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
|
The baby is sleeping
|
The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
|
The baby is not sleeping
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is sleeping, since if the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the baby is sleeping and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cloudy and rainy then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and the weather is cloudy and rainy, which establishes that a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat.
|
If the weather is cloudy and rainy then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
|
The weather is cloudy and rainy
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat
|
modus ponen
|
The weather is cloudy and rainy
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat
|
The weather is not cloudy and rainy
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cloudy and rainy then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and the weather is cloudy and rainy, which establishes that a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, thus 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 john davis had a history of stalking laura
|
John davis did not have a history of stalking laura
|
The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
|
John Davis had a history of stalking Laura
|
The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, thus 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|>
|
The cat is not black, because if the cat is black then the baby is teething on a toy and the baby is not teething on a toy.
|
If the cat is black then the baby is teething on a toy
|
The baby is not teething on a toy
|
The cat is not black
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is black
|
The baby is teething on a toy
|
The cat is not black
|
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: ```The cat is not black, because if the cat is black 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|>
|
The cat is not purring, as if the cat is purring then the football is round and the football is not round.
|
If the cat is purring then the football is round
|
The football is not round
|
The cat is not purring
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is purring
|
The football is round
|
The cat is not purring
|
The football is not round
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is not purring, as if the cat is purring then the football is round and the football is not round.```<|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 emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, therefore emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.
|
If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
modus ponen
|
A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, therefore emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the movie is a drama, and the movie is not a drama, so it can be concluded that the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased.
|
If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the movie is a drama
|
The movie is not a drama
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
|
modus tollen
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
|
The movie is a drama
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
|
The movie is not a drama
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the movie is a drama, and the movie is not a drama, so it can be concluded that the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, so the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact.
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
modus ponen
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
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 the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, so the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, which shows that no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.
|
If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
John davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
|
No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
modus tollen
|
A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, which shows that no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, as if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily.
|
If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
modus ponen
|
A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, as if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker and 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 john davis had bruises on his arms then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and john davis had bruises on his arms, so a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement.
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
John davis had bruises on his arms
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had bruises on his arms
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
John Davis did not have bruises on his arms
|
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 john davis had bruises on his arms then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and john davis had bruises on his arms, so a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems, thus 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 suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
|
The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems
|
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 suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
|
No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems, thus no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, so laura's medical records were accessed without authorization.
|
If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
modus ponen
|
The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery
|
Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, so laura's medical records were accessed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, which implies that the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.
|
If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
|
Detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
|
The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
|
The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, which implies that the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, which establishes that emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.
|
If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, which establishes that emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is sleeping then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and the baby is sleeping, so sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.
|
If the baby is sleeping then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily
|
The baby is sleeping
|
Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is sleeping
|
Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily
|
The baby is not sleeping
|
Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of 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 baby is sleeping then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and the baby is sleeping, so sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, so the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.
|
If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
|
The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
|
The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, so 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 laura's passport is missing then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and laura's passport is missing, which shows that a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.
|
If laura's passport is missing then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
Laura's passport is missing
|
A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's passport is missing
|
A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
Laura's passport is not missing
|
No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's passport is missing then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and laura's passport is missing, which shows that a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement, since if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker and laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker.
|
If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
|
The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement, since if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker and laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account, which establishes that a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene.
|
If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account
|
Richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
|
A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
|
Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account
|
A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
|
Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account, which establishes that a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, which shows that john davis had a history of stalking other women.
|
If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then john davis had a history of stalking other women
|
A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
John Davis had a history of stalking other women
|
modus ponen
|
A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
John Davis had a history of stalking other women
|
No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, which shows that john davis had a history of stalking other women.```<|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 a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, which implies that a security camera captured the suspect entering the building.
|
If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, which implies that a security camera captured the suspect entering the building.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the pizza is hot then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, and the pizza is hot, thus the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information.
|
If the pizza is hot then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
|
The pizza is hot
|
The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
|
modus ponen
|
The pizza is hot
|
The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
|
The pizza is not hot
|
The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the pizza is hot then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, and the pizza is hot, thus the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the apple is red then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and the apple is red, hence john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents.
|
If the apple is red then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents
|
The apple is red
|
John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents
|
modus ponen
|
The apple is red
|
John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents
|
The apple is not red
|
John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the apple is red then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and the apple is red, hence john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not purring contentedly, as if the cat is purring contentedly then the computer is on and the computer is not on.
|
If the cat is purring contentedly then the computer is on
|
The computer is not on
|
The cat is not purring contentedly
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is purring contentedly
|
The computer is on
|
The cat is not purring contentedly
|
The computer is not on
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is not purring contentedly, as if the cat is purring contentedly then the computer is on and the computer is not on.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, as if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then laura's prescription medications were stolen and laura's prescription medications were not stolen.
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then laura's prescription medications were stolen
|
Laura's prescription medications were not stolen
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
|
Laura's prescription medications were stolen
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information
|
Laura's prescription medications were not stolen
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, as if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then laura's prescription medications were stolen and 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 emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, and the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, thus emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.
|
If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
|
modus tollen
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft
|
The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
|
The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, and the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, thus emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, which implies that a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine.
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine
|
The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
|
A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine
|
modus ponen
|
The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
|
A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine
|
The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
|
A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, which implies that a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, and the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, thus a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment.
|
If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
|
The victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment
|
modus ponen
|
The victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment
|
The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect
|
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 victim had a restraining order against the suspect then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, and the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, thus 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|>
|
The pizza is not hot, since if the pizza is hot then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store and a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.
|
If the pizza is hot then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
The pizza is not hot
|
modus tollen
|
The pizza is hot
|
A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
The pizza is not hot
|
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: ```The pizza is not hot, since if the pizza is hot then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store and a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.```<|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 the tree is shedding leaves, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, therefore the tree is shedding leaves.
|
If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the tree is shedding leaves
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
The tree is shedding leaves
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
The tree is shedding leaves
|
Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
The tree is not shedding leaves
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the tree is shedding leaves, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, therefore the tree is shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the door then the book is a mystery novel, and the book is not a mystery novel, which establishes that the baby is not crawling towards the door.
|
If the baby is crawling towards the door then the book is a mystery novel
|
The book is not a mystery novel
|
The baby is not crawling towards the door
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is crawling towards the door
|
The book is a mystery novel
|
The baby is not crawling towards the door
|
The book is not a mystery novel
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the door then the book is a mystery novel, and the book is not a mystery novel, which establishes that the baby is not crawling towards the door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the bird is singing then laura had a life insurance policy, and the bird is singing, therefore laura had a life insurance policy.
|
If the bird is singing then laura had a life insurance policy
|
The bird is singing
|
Laura had a life insurance policy
|
modus ponen
|
The bird is singing
|
Laura had a life insurance policy
|
The bird is not singing
|
Laura did not have a life insurance policy
| 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 laura had a life insurance policy, and the bird is singing, therefore laura had a 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|>
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John
|
modus ponen
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the cat 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, which implies that the baby is not crawling towards the cat.
|
If the baby is crawling towards the cat 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
|
The baby is not crawling towards the cat
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is crawling towards the cat
|
The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
The baby is not crawling towards the cat
|
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 the baby is crawling towards the cat 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, which implies that the baby is not crawling towards the cat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the movie is a documentary, and the movie is not a documentary, therefore 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 documentary
|
The movie is not a documentary
|
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 documentary
|
No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
The movie is not a documentary
| 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 documentary, and the movie is not a documentary, therefore no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, so emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.
|
If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then john davis had a history of identity theft
|
John davis did not have a history of identity theft
|
Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
modus tollen
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
John Davis had a history of identity theft
|
Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
John Davis did not have a history of identity theft
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, so emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, since if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.
|
If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
modus ponen
|
A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
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: ```A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, since if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, hence the baby is drinking from a bottle.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the baby is drinking from a bottle
|
A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
The baby is drinking from a bottle
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
The baby is drinking from a bottle
|
No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
The baby is not drinking from a bottle
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, hence the baby is drinking from a bottle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of stalking other women 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 establishes that john davis did not have a history of stalking other women.
|
If john davis had a history of stalking other women 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
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a history of stalking other women
|
A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women
|
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 john davis had a history of stalking other women 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 establishes that john davis did not have a history of stalking other women.```<|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 neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, as if a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home.
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
modus ponen
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, as if a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a family film then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and the movie is a family film, which implies that a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.
|
If the movie is a family film then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
The movie is a family film
|
A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a family film
|
A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
The movie is not a family film
|
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 movie is a family film then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and the movie is a family film, which implies 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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, so it can be concluded that a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.
|
If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
|
The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
|
modus tollen
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
|
The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, so it can be concluded that a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have 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|>
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, because if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect.
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
The victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, because if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not sleeping on the couch, since if the cat is sleeping on the couch then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim and the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.
|
If the cat is sleeping on the couch then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
|
The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
|
The cat is not sleeping on the couch
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is sleeping on the couch
|
The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
|
The cat is not sleeping on the couch
|
The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is not sleeping on the couch, since if the cat is sleeping on the couch then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim and the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, because if a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door and laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.
|
If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
modus tollen
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, because if a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door and laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, as if witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office and no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.
|
If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
modus tollen
|
Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, as if witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office and no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap, therefore no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.
|
If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
modus tollen
|
A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
The cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap, therefore no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and the sun is not shining brightly overhead, which establishes that no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the sun is shining brightly overhead
|
The sun is not shining brightly overhead
|
No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
modus tollen
|
A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
The sun is shining brightly overhead
|
No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
The sun is not shining brightly overhead
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and the sun is not shining brightly overhead, which establishes that 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|>
|
The sky is not blue, as if the sky is blue then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.
|
If the sky is blue 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 sky is not blue
|
modus tollen
|
The sky is blue
|
A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
The sky is not blue
|
A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sky is not blue, as if the sky is blue then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the sun is shining through the window, and the sun is not shining through the window, therefore the cat is not sleeping in the sun.
|
If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the sun is shining through the window
|
The sun is not shining through the window
|
The cat is not sleeping in the sun
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is sleeping in the sun
|
The sun is shining through the window
|
The cat is not sleeping in the sun
|
The sun is not shining through the window
| 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 the sun is shining through the window, and the sun is not shining through the window, therefore 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|>
|
If the book is a biography then the dog is barking, and the book is a biography, thus the dog is barking.
|
If the book is a biography then the dog is barking
|
The book is a biography
|
The dog is barking
|
modus ponen
|
The book is a biography
|
The dog is barking
|
The book is not a biography
|
The dog is not barking
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a biography then the dog is barking, and the book is a biography, thus the dog is barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, therefore officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.
|
If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet
|
The cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
|
The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap
|
Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, therefore officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, since if the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the cat is grooming itself and the cat is not grooming itself.
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the cat is grooming itself
|
The cat is not grooming itself
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
The cat is grooming itself
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
The cat is not grooming itself
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, since if the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the cat is grooming itself and the cat is not grooming itself.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, so it can be concluded that a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.
|
If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
|
Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
|
Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, so it can be concluded that a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, which implies that no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect
|
No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
|
modus tollen
|
A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
|
The victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
|
The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, which implies that no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, since if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the cat is black and the cat is not black.
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the cat is black
|
The cat is not black
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
The cat is black
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
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: ```The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, since if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the cat is black and the cat is not black.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, and a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, which establishes that surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
|
A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
modus tollen
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, and a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, which establishes that surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and no broken window was found in laura's bedroom, thus the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.
|
If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom
|
No broken window was found in laura's bedroom
|
The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
|
A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
|
No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and no broken window was found in laura's bedroom, thus the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat, since if the movie is a comedy then the murder weapon was a baseball bat and the movie is a comedy.
|
If the movie is a comedy then the murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
The movie is a comedy
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a comedy
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
The movie is not a comedy
|
The murder weapon was not a baseball bat
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The murder weapon was a baseball bat, since if the movie is a comedy then the murder weapon was a baseball bat and the movie is 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|>
|
John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, since if john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape 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.
|
If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape 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
|
John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape
|
Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape
|
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: ```John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, since if john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's house was not booby-trapped, as if laura's house was booby-trapped then the stolen van was registered in a fake name and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name.
|
If laura's house was booby-trapped then the stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
|
Laura's house was not booby-trapped
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's house was booby-trapped
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
Laura's house was not booby-trapped
|
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: ```Laura's house was not booby-trapped, as if laura's house was booby-trapped then the stolen van was registered in a fake name and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, which implies that no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, which implies that no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cold and rainy then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone, so the weather is not cold and rainy.
|
If the weather is cold and rainy then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone
|
John davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone
|
The weather is not cold and rainy
|
modus tollen
|
The weather is cold and rainy
|
John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone
|
The weather is not cold and rainy
|
John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and rainy then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone, so the weather is not cold and rainy.```<|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 nice then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the weather is nice, thus the stolen van was registered in a fake name.
|
If the weather is nice then the stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
The weather is nice
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
modus ponen
|
The weather is nice
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
The weather is not nice
|
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 weather is nice then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the weather is nice, thus 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 book is written by a famous author then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and the book is written by a famous author, which implies that emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.
|
If the book is written by a famous author then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
|
modus ponen
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and the book is written by a famous author, which implies that emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, so richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery.
|
If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery
|
A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
|
Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery
|
modus ponen
|
A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
|
Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery
|
A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
|
Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, so richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, which shows that a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession.
|
If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
|
modus tollen
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, which shows that a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession.```<|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 bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, which implies that emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.
|
If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
|
Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder
|
modus tollen
|
Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder
|
The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, which implies that emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, since if a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the dog is happy and the dog is not happy.
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the dog is happy
|
The dog is not happy
|
No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
modus tollen
|
A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
The dog is happy
|
No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
The dog is not happy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, since if a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the dog is happy and the dog is not happy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the toy then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, and the baby is crawling towards the toy, which establishes that surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.
|
If the baby is crawling towards the toy then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
The baby is crawling towards the toy
|
Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is crawling towards the toy
|
Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
The baby is not crawling towards the toy
|
Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the toy then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, and the baby is crawling towards the toy, which establishes that surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then cats are mammals, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, which establishes that cats are mammals.
|
If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then cats are mammals
|
Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
|
Cats are mammals
|
modus ponen
|
Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
|
Cats are mammals
|
Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
|
Cats are not mammals
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then cats are mammals, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, which establishes that cats are mammals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a family film then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and the movie is a family film, hence surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.
|
If the movie is a family film then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
The movie is a family film
|
Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a family film
|
Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
The movie is not a family film
|
Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a family film then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and the movie is a family film, hence surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the baby is not drinking from a bottle, so it can be concluded that a shattered vase was not found in the hallway.
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the baby is drinking from a bottle
|
The baby is not drinking from a bottle
|
A shattered vase was not found in the hallway
|
modus tollen
|
A shattered vase was found in the hallway
|
The baby is drinking from a bottle
|
A shattered vase was not found in the hallway
|
The baby is not drinking from a bottle
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the baby is not drinking from a bottle, so it can be concluded that a shattered vase was not found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, as if a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.
|
If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe
|
A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
modus ponen
|
A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
|
A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
|
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: ```A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, as if a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then the car is parked on the street, and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, so it can be concluded that the car is parked on the street.
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then the car is parked on the street
|
The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
The car is parked on the street
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
The car is parked on the street
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
The car is not parked on the street
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then the car is parked on the street, and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, so it can be concluded that the car is parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and john davis did not have a history of stalking other women, which shows that a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox.
|
If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then john davis had a history of stalking other women
|
John davis did not have a history of stalking other women
|
A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox
|
modus tollen
|
A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox
|
John Davis had a history of stalking other women
|
A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox
|
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 a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and john davis did not have a history of stalking other women, which shows that a handwritten note with threats was not 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 a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, thus no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past
|
John davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
modus tollen
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, thus no 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 victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and no broken window was found in laura's bedroom, hence the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom
|
No broken window was found in laura's bedroom
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
modus tollen
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and no broken window was found in laura's bedroom, hence the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not exciting, since if the movie is exciting then the murder weapon was a baseball bat and the murder weapon was not a baseball bat.
|
If the movie is exciting then the murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
The murder weapon was not a baseball bat
|
The movie is not exciting
|
modus tollen
|
The movie is exciting
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
The movie is not exciting
|
The murder weapon was not a baseball bat
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not exciting, since if the movie is exciting then the murder weapon was a baseball bat and the murder weapon was not a baseball bat.```<|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 the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, which implies that the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.
|
If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident
|
The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident
|
The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident
|
The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, which implies that the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.