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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The baby is teething on a toy, because if a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the baby is teething on a toy and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home.
|
If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the baby is teething on a toy
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home
|
The baby is teething on a toy
|
modus ponen
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home
|
The baby is teething on a toy
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
|
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 baby is teething on a toy, because if a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the baby is teething on a toy and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily'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 suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, which implies that the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities.
|
If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
|
Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
|
The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
|
The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
|
Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, which implies that the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities.```<|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 football is round then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and no bloody footprint was found in the living room, which implies that the football is not round.
|
If the football is round then a bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
The football is not round
|
modus tollen
|
The football is round
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
The football is not round
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the football is round then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and no bloody footprint was found in the living room, which implies that 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 laura's jewelry box was emptied then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, thus a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.
|
If laura's jewelry box was emptied then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
Laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
|
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 laura's jewelry box was emptied then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, thus 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|>
|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, since if the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery.
|
If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
|
modus ponen
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
|
The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, since if the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a bestseller then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, therefore the book is not a bestseller.
|
If the book is a bestseller then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
|
Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house
|
The book is not a bestseller
|
modus tollen
|
The book is a bestseller
|
Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
|
The book is not a bestseller
|
Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a bestseller then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, therefore the book is not a bestseller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, so it can be concluded that a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect.
|
If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect
|
modus ponen
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect
|
A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene
|
A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match 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 jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, so it can be concluded that a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, therefore the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased.
|
If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
|
Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
|
Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, therefore the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had a secret storage room in her house then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, and no neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, so it can be concluded that laura did not have a secret storage room in her house.
|
If laura had a secret storage room in her house then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
|
modus tollen
|
Laura had a secret storage room in her house
|
A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
|
No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a secret storage room in her house then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, and no neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, so it can be concluded that laura did not have a secret storage room in her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of stalking laura then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, which shows that john davis did not have a history of stalking laura.
|
If john davis had a history of stalking laura then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a history of stalking Laura
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of stalking laura then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, which shows that john davis did not have a history of stalking laura.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, hence no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard.
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
|
Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard
|
modus tollen
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard
|
Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard
|
Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, hence no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, as if the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then laura's jewelry box was emptied and laura's jewelry box was not emptied.
|
If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
|
The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
Laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, as if the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then laura's jewelry box was emptied and laura's jewelry box was not emptied.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the dog is barking at the dog next door, and the dog is not barking at the dog next door, which establishes that the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.
|
If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the dog is barking at the dog next door
|
The dog is not barking at the dog next door
|
The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation
|
modus tollen
|
The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation
|
The dog is barking at the dog next door
|
The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation
|
The dog is not barking at the dog next door
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the dog is barking at the dog next door, and the dog is not barking at the dog next door, which establishes that the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.```<|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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, which implies that the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home.
|
If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
|
Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
|
The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
|
Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
|
The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
|
Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, which implies that the victim's security system did not record 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 a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the water is warm, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, thus the water is warm.
|
If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the water is warm
|
A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house
|
The water is warm
|
modus ponen
|
A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
|
The water is warm
|
No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
|
The water is not warm
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the water is warm, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, thus the water is warm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, hence the murder weapon was a baseball bat.
|
If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then the murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents
|
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: ```If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, hence the murder weapon was 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 john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone.
|
If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
|
John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone
|
The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed
|
John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not purring contentedly, because if the cat is purring contentedly then laura's pet cat is missing and laura's pet cat is not missing.
|
If the cat is purring contentedly then laura's pet cat is missing
|
Laura's pet cat is not missing
|
The cat is not purring contentedly
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is purring contentedly
|
Laura's pet cat is missing
|
The cat is not purring contentedly
|
Laura's pet cat is not missing
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is not purring contentedly, because if the cat is purring contentedly then laura's pet cat is missing and laura's pet cat is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, and emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, hence witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.
|
If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
modus tollen
|
Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, and emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, hence witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, therefore the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim.
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
|
modus ponen
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
|
The murder weapon was not a baseball bat
|
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: ```If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, therefore the suspect's social media posts hinted 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|>
|
If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, so laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed.
|
If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
|
No suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
|
Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
|
No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, so laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, which implies that a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.
|
If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john
|
A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John
|
A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John
|
No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, which implies that a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, therefore a shattered vase was not found in the hallway.
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
A shattered vase was not found in the hallway
|
modus tollen
|
A shattered vase was found in the hallway
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
A shattered vase was not found in the hallway
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, therefore 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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, as if the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.
|
If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
|
The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
|
The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, as if the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, because if a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene.
|
If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
modus ponen
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, because if a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years and a jeweler's toolset was missing from 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 paris is in france then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap, so it can be concluded that paris is not in france.
|
If paris is in france then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap
|
Paris is not in France
|
modus tollen
|
Paris is in France
|
The cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
Paris is not in France
|
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 paris is in france then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap, so it can be concluded that paris is not in france.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, so it can be concluded that emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.
|
If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene
|
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 witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, so it can be concluded 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 laura's garage door was left open then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and laura's garage door was left open, which establishes that the suspect had a history of mental health issues.
|
If laura's garage door was left open then the suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
Laura's garage door was left open
|
The suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's garage door was left open
|
The suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
Laura's garage door was not left open
|
The suspect had no history of mental health issues
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's garage door was left open then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and laura's garage door was left open, which establishes that the suspect had a history of mental health issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the computer is on then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and the computer is on, so a witness heard screams coming from laura's house.
|
If the computer is on then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house
|
The computer is on
|
A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
modus ponen
|
The computer is on
|
A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
The computer is not on
|
No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the computer is on then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and the computer is on, so a witness heard screams coming from laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the toy then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and the baby is crawling towards the toy, thus richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account.
|
If the baby is crawling towards the toy then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account
|
The baby is crawling towards the toy
|
Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is crawling towards the toy
|
Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account
|
The baby is not crawling towards the toy
|
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 the baby is crawling towards the toy then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and the baby is crawling towards the toy, thus richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account.```<|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 documentary then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, which implies that the movie is not a documentary.
|
If the movie is a documentary then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
|
Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
|
The movie is not a documentary
|
modus tollen
|
The movie is a documentary
|
Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
|
The movie is not a documentary
|
Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty 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 movie is a documentary then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, which implies that the movie is not a documentary.```<|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 the dog is barking loudly, and john davis had a history of stalking other women, so the dog is barking loudly.
|
If john davis had a history of stalking other women then the dog is barking loudly
|
John davis had a history of stalking other women
|
The dog is barking loudly
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a history of stalking other women
|
The dog is barking loudly
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women
|
The dog is not barking loudly
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of stalking other women then the dog is barking loudly, and john davis had a history of stalking other women, so the dog is barking loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, since if a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.
|
If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement
|
modus tollen
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement
|
Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, since if a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, since if john davis has a history of violent behavior then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky and john davis has a history of violent behavior.
|
If john davis has a history of violent behavior then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
John davis has a history of violent behavior
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis has a history of violent behavior
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, since if john davis has a history of violent behavior then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky and john davis has a history of violent behavior.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, since if a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.
|
If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
|
modus tollen
|
A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, since if a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a neighbor did not hear a gunshot, so laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions.
|
If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then a neighbor heard a gunshot
|
A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
|
Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot
|
Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
|
A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a neighbor did not hear a gunshot, so laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The computer is on, because if cats are mammals then the computer is on and cats are mammals.
|
If cats are mammals then the computer is on
|
Cats are mammals
|
The computer is on
|
modus ponen
|
Cats are mammals
|
The computer is on
|
Cats are not mammals
|
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 computer is on, because if cats are mammals then the computer is on and 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|>
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, as if the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information.
|
If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information
|
A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, as if the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle and 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 john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, so john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past.
|
If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then john davis had a history of identity theft
|
John davis did not have a history of identity theft
|
John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past
|
John Davis had a history of identity theft
|
John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
|
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 john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, so john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the apple is red, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, which shows that the apple is red.
|
If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the apple is red
|
Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
|
The apple is red
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
|
The apple is red
|
Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
|
The apple is not red
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the apple is red, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, which shows that the apple is red.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, thus surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.
|
If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home
|
Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
|
modus tollen
|
Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home
|
Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, thus surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after 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 neighbor heard a gunshot then the car is a sedan, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, hence the car is a sedan.
|
If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the car is a sedan
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot
|
The car is a sedan
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot
|
The car is a sedan
|
A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
|
The car is not a sedan
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the car is a sedan, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, hence the car is a sedan.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, which shows that the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user.
|
If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
|
Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
|
The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
|
Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
| 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 victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, which shows that the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a musical film then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which implies that the movie is not a musical film.
|
If the movie is a musical film then the book is written by a famous author
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
The movie is not a musical film
|
modus tollen
|
The movie is a musical film
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
The movie is not a musical film
|
The book is not written by a famous author
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a musical film then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which implies that the movie is not a musical film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The tree is shedding leaves, since if a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the tree is shedding leaves and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene.
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the tree is shedding leaves
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
The tree is shedding leaves
|
modus ponen
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
The tree is shedding leaves
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
The tree is not shedding leaves
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The tree is shedding leaves, since if a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the tree is shedding leaves and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, so emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky.
|
If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, so emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the eiffel tower is in paris then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo, so it can be concluded that the eiffel tower is not in paris.
|
If the eiffel tower is in paris then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
|
A homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo
|
The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
|
modus tollen
|
The Eiffel Tower is in Paris
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo
|
The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the eiffel tower is in paris then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo, so it can be concluded that the eiffel tower is not in paris.```<|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 did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, because if laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom and no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom
|
No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
No hidden camera 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: ```Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, because if laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom and no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, as if the book is written by a famous author then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo and the book is written by a famous author.
|
If the book is written by a famous author then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo
|
modus ponen
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, as if the book is written by a famous author then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo and the book is written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the apple is red then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and the apple is red, thus the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker.
|
If the apple is red then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
|
The apple is red
|
The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
|
modus ponen
|
The apple is red
|
The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
|
The apple is not red
|
The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the apple is red then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and the apple is red, thus the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with a toy car then the sun is shining brightly, and the sun is not shining brightly, therefore the baby is not playing with a toy car.
|
If the baby is playing with a toy car then the sun is shining brightly
|
The sun is not shining brightly
|
The baby is not playing with a toy car
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is playing with a toy car
|
The sun is shining brightly
|
The baby is not playing with a toy car
|
The sun is not shining brightly
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with a toy car then the sun is shining brightly, and the sun is not shining brightly, therefore the baby is not playing with a toy car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, because if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape
|
John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
|
modus tollen
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
|
John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
|
John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, because if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the bird is singing then the book is a memoir, and the book is not a memoir, which establishes that the bird is not singing.
|
If the bird is singing then the book is a memoir
|
The book is not a memoir
|
The bird is not singing
|
modus tollen
|
The bird is singing
|
The book is a memoir
|
The bird is not singing
|
The book is not a memoir
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the bird is singing then the book is a memoir, and the book is not a memoir, which establishes that the bird is not singing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, so it can be concluded that a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.
|
If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
|
A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, so it can be concluded that a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a secret storage unit then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, so john davis did not have a secret storage unit.
|
If john davis had a secret storage unit then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
John Davis did not have a secret storage unit
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a secret storage unit
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
John Davis did not have a secret storage unit
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a secret storage unit then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, so john davis did not have a secret storage unit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's mail was tampered with then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, thus laura's mail was not tampered with.
|
If laura's mail was tampered with then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
|
Richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's mail was tampered with
|
Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with
|
Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's mail was tampered with then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, thus laura's mail was not tampered with.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A gas leak was detected in the basement, because if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then a gas leak was detected in the basement and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then a gas leak was detected in the basement
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
A gas leak was detected in the basement
|
modus ponen
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
A gas leak was detected in the basement
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
A gas leak was not detected in the basement
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A gas leak was detected in the basement, because if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then a gas leak was detected in the basement and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the computer is on then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and the computer is on, therefore a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.
|
If the computer is on then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
The computer is on
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
modus ponen
|
The computer is on
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
The computer is not on
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the computer is on then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and the computer is on, therefore a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a sedan then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, therefore the car is not a sedan.
|
If the car is a sedan then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
The car is not a sedan
|
modus tollen
|
The car is a sedan
|
A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
The car is not a sedan
|
No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a sedan then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, therefore the car is not a sedan.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders, as if john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then laura's garage door was left open and laura's garage door was not left open.
|
If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then laura's garage door was left open
|
Laura's garage door was not left open
|
John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders
|
Laura's garage door was left open
|
John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders
|
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: ```John davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders, as if john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then laura's garage door was left open and laura's garage door was not left open.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the dog is barking at the mailman, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, thus the dog is barking at the mailman.
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the dog is barking at the mailman
|
A shattered vase was found in the hallway
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
modus ponen
|
A shattered vase was found in the hallway
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
A shattered vase was not found in the hallway
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman
| 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 dog is barking at the mailman, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, thus the dog is barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is not shining brightly overhead, since if the sun is shining brightly overhead then the book is written by a famous author and the book is not written by a famous author.
|
If the sun is shining brightly overhead then the book is written by a famous author
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
The sun is not shining brightly overhead
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is shining brightly overhead
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
The sun is not shining brightly overhead
|
The book is not written by a famous author
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not shining brightly overhead, since if the sun is shining brightly overhead then the book is written by a famous author and the book is not written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's prescription medications were stolen then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the suspect had no history of mental health issues, which implies that laura's prescription medications were not stolen.
|
If laura's prescription medications were stolen then the suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
The suspect had no history of mental health issues
|
Laura's prescription medications were not stolen
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's prescription medications were stolen
|
The suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
Laura's prescription medications were not stolen
|
The suspect had no history of mental health issues
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's prescription medications were stolen then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the suspect had no history of mental health issues, which implies that 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 sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, which establishes that sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder.
|
If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen
|
No cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
|
modus tollen
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
|
No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, which establishes that sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, which shows that a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.
|
If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
|
A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
|
modus ponen
|
A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
|
No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, which shows that a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which shows that the cat is not sleeping in the sun.
|
If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
|
The cat is not sleeping in the sun
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is sleeping in the sun
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
The cat is not sleeping in the sun
|
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 cat is sleeping in the sun then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which shows that 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 laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, which implies that laura's medical records were accessed without authorization.
|
If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
|
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 laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, which implies that 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 a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, so it can be concluded that no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.
|
If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
modus tollen
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, so it can be concluded that no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which establishes that surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
modus ponen
|
A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which establishes that surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which establishes that laura's jewelry box was not emptied.
|
If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the book is written by a famous author
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
|
The book is not written by a famous author
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which establishes that laura's jewelry box was not emptied.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, thus emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate.
|
If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
modus tollen
|
Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, thus emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The car is a hybrid, because if the sun is shining brightly overhead then the car is a hybrid and the sun is shining brightly overhead.
|
If the sun is shining brightly overhead then the car is a hybrid
|
The sun is shining brightly overhead
|
The car is a hybrid
|
modus ponen
|
The sun is shining brightly overhead
|
The car is a hybrid
|
The sun is not shining brightly overhead
|
The car is not a hybrid
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is a hybrid, because if the sun is shining brightly overhead then the car is a hybrid and the sun is shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, which shows that a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession.
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession
|
modus ponen
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily'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 surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, which shows that a gps device linked to the stolen van was 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 the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the movie is exciting, and the movie is not exciting, which implies that the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.
|
If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the movie is exciting
|
The movie is not exciting
|
The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
|
modus tollen
|
The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
|
The movie is exciting
|
The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
|
The movie is not exciting
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the movie is exciting, and the movie is not exciting, which implies that the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine, which implies that a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house.
|
If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine
|
A threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine
|
A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine
|
A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
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 a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine, which implies that a neighbor did not report 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|>
|
If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then it is raining today, and it is not raining today, so laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently.
|
If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then it is raining today
|
It is not raining today
|
Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently
|
modus tollen
|
Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently
|
It is raining today
|
Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently
|
It is not raining today
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then it is raining today, and it is not raining today, so laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking at the dog next door, since if john davis has a history of violent behavior then the dog is barking at the dog next door and john davis has a history of violent behavior.
|
If john davis has a history of violent behavior then the dog is barking at the dog next door
|
John davis has a history of violent behavior
|
The dog is barking at the dog next door
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis has a history of violent behavior
|
The dog is barking at the dog next door
|
John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior
|
The dog is not barking at the dog next door
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking at the dog next door, since if john davis has a history of violent behavior then the dog is barking at the dog next door and john davis has a history of violent behavior.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a memoir then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, which establishes that the book is not a memoir.
|
If the book is a memoir then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
The book is not a memoir
|
modus tollen
|
The book is a memoir
|
A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
The book is not a memoir
|
No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a memoir then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, which establishes that the book is not a memoir.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck, because if the dog is barking at the mail truck then emily had recently taken a self-defense course and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course.
|
If the dog is barking at the mail truck then emily had recently taken a self-defense course
|
Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking at the mail truck
|
Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck
|
Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is not barking at the mail truck, because if the dog is barking at the mail truck then emily had recently taken a self-defense course and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If cats are mammals then the movie is a documentary, and the movie is not a documentary, thus cats are not mammals.
|
If cats are mammals then the movie is a documentary
|
The movie is not a documentary
|
Cats are not mammals
|
modus tollen
|
Cats are mammals
|
The movie is a documentary
|
Cats are not mammals
|
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 cats are mammals then the movie is a documentary, and the movie is not a documentary, thus cats are not 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 suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, and detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, which implies that the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities.
|
If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
Detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
|
Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, and detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, which implies that the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities.```<|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 name is sarah mitchell then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the victim's name is sarah mitchell, so it can be concluded that the sun is setting slowly in the sky.
|
If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then the sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The victim's name is sarah mitchell
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the victim's name is sarah mitchell, so it can be concluded that the sun is setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, which implies that a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.
|
If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
modus ponen
|
A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, which implies that a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, since if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the weather is nice and the weather is not nice.
|
If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the weather is nice
|
The weather is not nice
|
No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
modus tollen
|
A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
The weather is nice
|
No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
The weather is not nice
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, since if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the weather is nice and the weather is not nice.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, since if a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the dog is barking and the dog is not barking.
|
If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the dog is barking
|
The dog is not barking
|
No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
|
modus tollen
|
A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
|
The dog is barking
|
No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
|
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: ```No threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, since if a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the dog is barking and the dog is not barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, since if emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization and the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization.
|
If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
|
Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course
|
modus tollen
|
Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
|
Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, since if emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization and the jewelry store's alarm code was not 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|>
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, which implies that no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
modus tollen
|
A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, which implies that no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's laptop was not found smashed, since if laura's laptop was found smashed then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder and no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
Laura's laptop was not found smashed
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's laptop was found smashed
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
Laura's laptop was not found smashed
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's laptop was not found smashed, since if laura's laptop was found smashed then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder and no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed, since if laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then the cat is purring contentedly and the cat is not purring contentedly.
|
If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then the cat is purring contentedly
|
The cat is not purring contentedly
|
Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
The cat is purring contentedly
|
Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
|
The cat is not purring contentedly
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed, since if laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then the cat is purring contentedly and the cat is not purring contentedly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura had not installed a home security system, as if laura had installed a home security system then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.
|
If laura had installed a home security system then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
|
modus tollen
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura had not installed a home security system, as if laura had installed a home security system then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene and a stolen car was not found abandoned 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 detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, and the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, hence detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement.
|
If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
|
Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
modus tollen
|
Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
|
Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, and the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, hence detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, therefore the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars.
|
If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
A handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
modus ponen
|
A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, therefore the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars.```<|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 neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, as if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then laura's jewelry box was emptied and laura's jewelry box was not emptied.
|
If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
|
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
|
Laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, as if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then laura's jewelry box was emptied and laura's jewelry box was not emptied.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, which implies that detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.
|
If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
|
The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
|
Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
modus tollen
|
Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
|
Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, which implies that detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, therefore the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery.
|
If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
|
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 laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, therefore the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and the baby is not crawling towards the cat, which shows that richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account.
|
If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the baby is crawling towards the cat
|
The baby is not crawling towards the cat
|
Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
|
modus tollen
|
Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account
|
The baby is crawling towards the cat
|
Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
|
The baby is not crawling towards the cat
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and the baby is not crawling towards the cat, which shows that richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, thus laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker.
|
If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
modus ponen
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, thus laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the dog is barking, and the dog is not barking, so it can be concluded that a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the dog is barking
|
The dog is not barking
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
|
modus tollen
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
|
The dog is barking
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
|
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 a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the dog is barking, and the dog is not barking, so it can be concluded that a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not 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 baby is crawling towards the cat then it is raining today, and the baby is crawling towards the cat, hence it is raining today.
|
If the baby is crawling towards the cat then it is raining today
|
The baby is crawling towards the cat
|
It is raining today
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is crawling towards the cat
|
It is raining today
|
The baby is not crawling towards the cat
|
It is not raining today
| 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 it is raining today, and the baby is crawling towards the cat, hence it is raining today.```<|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 laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and the book is a biography, which implies that laura's dog was found locked in a closet.
|
If the book is a biography then laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
The book is a biography
|
Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
modus ponen
|
The book is a biography
|
Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
The book is not a biography
|
Laura's dog was not found locked in a 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 book is a biography then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and the book is a biography, which implies that laura's dog was found locked in a closet.```<|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.