Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.
stringlengths 74
421
| If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
stringlengths 36
192
| Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 788
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street
stringclasses 788
values | modus ponen
stringclasses 2
values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1
stringclasses 394
values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street
stringclasses 394
values | True
bool 1
class | text
stringlengths 453
800
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, which shows that john davis had a history of stalking laura.
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then john davis had a history of stalking laura
|
Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
John Davis had a history of stalking Laura
|
modus ponen
|
Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
John Davis had a history of stalking Laura
|
Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, which shows that john davis had a history of stalking laura.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a drama then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, therefore the movie is not a drama.
|
If the movie is a drama then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
|
Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
|
The movie is not a drama
|
modus tollen
|
The movie is a drama
|
Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
|
The movie is not a drama
|
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 movie is a drama then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, therefore the movie is not a drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then sally is older than john, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, which implies that sally is older than john.
|
If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then sally is older than john
|
Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
|
Sally is older than John
|
modus ponen
|
Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
|
Sally is older than John
|
Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
|
Sally is not older than John
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then sally is older than john, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, which implies that sally is older than john.```<|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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, which establishes that emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.
|
If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
modus tollen
|
Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, which establishes that emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.```<|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 a suspicious figure near the crime scene then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, hence laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis.
|
If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis
|
A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis
|
modus ponen
|
A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis
|
No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, hence laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is playing with blocks, because if the book is a collection of short stories then the baby is playing with blocks and the book is a collection of short stories.
|
If the book is a collection of short stories then the baby is playing with blocks
|
The book is a collection of short stories
|
The baby is playing with blocks
|
modus ponen
|
The book is a collection of short stories
|
The baby is playing with blocks
|
The book is not a collection of short stories
|
The baby is not playing with blocks
| 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 playing with blocks, because if the book is a collection of short stories then the baby is playing with blocks and the book is a collection of short stories.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, so it can be concluded that a security camera captured the suspect entering the building.
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, so it can be concluded that a security camera captured the suspect entering the building.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and the dog is barking, which shows that surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.
|
If the dog is barking then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
The dog is barking
|
Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking
|
Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
The dog is not barking
|
Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and the dog is barking, which shows that surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, thus laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van.
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the dog is barking at the mailman
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
|
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 laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, thus laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, which shows that a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow
|
A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
|
No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night
|
No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, which shows that a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the book is a memoir, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, hence the book is a memoir.
|
If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the book is a memoir
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
The book is a memoir
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
The book is a memoir
|
Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone
|
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 laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the book is a memoir, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, hence the book is a memoir.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's pet cat is not missing, since if laura's pet cat is missing then the stolen van was registered in a fake name and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name.
|
If laura's pet cat is missing then the stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
|
Laura's pet cat is not missing
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's pet cat is missing
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
Laura's pet cat is not missing
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's pet cat is not missing, since if laura's pet cat is missing then the stolen van was registered in a fake name and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, as if the sun is shining brightly overhead then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway and the sun is shining brightly overhead.
|
If the sun is shining brightly overhead then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
|
The sun is shining brightly overhead
|
A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
|
modus ponen
|
The sun is shining brightly overhead
|
A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
|
The sun is not shining brightly overhead
|
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: ```A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, as if the sun is shining brightly overhead then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway 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 a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then laura's garage door was left open, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, so it can be concluded that laura's garage door was left open.
|
If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then laura's garage door was left open
|
A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
Laura's garage door was left open
|
modus ponen
|
A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
Laura's garage door was left open
|
No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
Laura's garage door was not left open
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then laura's garage door was left open, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, so it can be concluded that laura's garage door was left open.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, so it can be concluded that emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
|
Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, so it can be concluded that emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, because if the movie is a comedy then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe and the movie is a comedy.
|
If the movie is a comedy then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
|
The movie is a comedy
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a comedy
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
The movie is not a comedy
|
John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, because if the movie is a comedy then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe and the movie is a comedy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and laura did not have a secret storage room in her house, so the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then laura had a secret storage room in her house
|
Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
Laura had a secret storage room in her house
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
|
Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and laura did not have a secret storage room in her house, so the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the movie is exciting, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, hence the movie is exciting.
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the movie is exciting
|
The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
|
The movie is exciting
|
modus ponen
|
The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
|
The movie is exciting
|
The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
|
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the movie is exciting, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, hence the movie is exciting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a hybrid then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, so the car is not a hybrid.
|
If the car is a hybrid then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack
|
No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack
|
The car is not a hybrid
|
modus tollen
|
The car is a hybrid
|
A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
|
The car is not a hybrid
|
No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a hybrid then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, so the car is not a hybrid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, which establishes that the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.
|
If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then emily had recently taken a self-defense course
|
Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course
|
The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
|
modus tollen
|
The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
|
Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
|
The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
|
Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, which establishes that the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.```<|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 ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.
|
If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
|
Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
|
Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
|
modus tollen
|
Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
|
Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
|
Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
|
Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the cat is eating food, and the cat is not eating food, which establishes that a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession.
|
If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the cat is eating food
|
The cat is not eating food
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
|
modus tollen
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession
|
The cat is eating food
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
|
The cat is not eating food
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the cat is eating food, and the cat is not eating food, which establishes that a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, because if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house and no witness heard screams coming from laura's house.
|
If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house
|
No witness heard screams coming from laura's house
|
Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby
|
modus tollen
|
Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby
|
A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby
|
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: ```Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, because if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house and no 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 movie is exciting then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, hence the movie is not exciting.
|
If the movie is exciting then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
The movie is not exciting
|
modus tollen
|
The movie is exciting
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
The movie is not exciting
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is exciting then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, hence the movie is not exciting.```<|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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the victim's name is not sarah mitchell, thus the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.
|
If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the victim's name is sarah mitchell
|
The victim's name is not sarah mitchell
|
The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell
|
The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell
| 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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the victim's name is not sarah mitchell, thus the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, therefore a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.
|
If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
A broken window was found in laura's bedroom
|
A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, therefore a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, since if a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the cat is purring and the cat is not purring.
|
If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the cat is purring
|
The cat is not purring
|
A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
modus tollen
|
A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
The cat is purring
|
A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
The cat is not purring
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, since if a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the cat is purring and the cat is not purring.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a mystery novel then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and the sun is not shining brightly in the sky, which shows that the book is not a mystery novel.
|
If the book is a mystery novel then the sun is shining brightly in the sky
|
The sun is not shining brightly in the sky
|
The book is not a mystery novel
|
modus tollen
|
The book is a mystery novel
|
The sun is shining brightly in the sky
|
The book is not a mystery novel
|
The sun is not shining brightly in the sky
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a mystery novel then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and the sun is not shining brightly in the sky, which shows that the book is not a mystery novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, and the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, therefore the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, and the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, therefore the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is hot and humid then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the weather is hot and humid, hence the sun is setting slowly in the sky.
|
If the weather is hot and humid then the sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The weather is hot and humid
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
modus ponen
|
The weather is hot and humid
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The weather is not hot and humid
|
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 weather is hot and humid then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the weather is hot and humid, hence the sun is setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the bestseller list then water is h2o, and water is not h2o, which implies that the book is not on the bestseller list.
|
If the book is on the bestseller list then water is h2o
|
Water is not h2o
|
The book is not on the bestseller list
|
modus tollen
|
The book is on the bestseller list
|
Water is H2O
|
The book is not on the bestseller list
|
Water is not H2O
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the bestseller list then water is h2o, and water is not h2o, which implies that the book is not on the bestseller list.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then the movie is exciting, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, thus the movie is exciting.
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then the movie is exciting
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
The movie is exciting
|
modus ponen
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
The movie is exciting
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
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 surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then the movie is exciting, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, thus the movie is exciting.```<|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 did not report hearing a loud argument, as if a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office and no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument
|
A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
|
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: ```A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument, as if a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office and no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, and the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, which establishes that a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement.
|
If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement
|
modus tollen
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement
|
The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, and the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, which establishes that a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, as if a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.
|
If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
|
A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
|
modus ponen
|
A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
|
No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, as if a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, and emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which implies that the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain.
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
modus tollen
|
The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, and emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which implies that the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain.```<|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 cat was found abandoned outside her house then the computer is on, and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, which shows that the computer is on.
|
If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then the computer is on
|
Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
|
The computer is on
|
modus ponen
|
Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
|
The computer is on
|
Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house
|
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: ```If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then the computer is on, and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, which shows that the computer is on.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cold and snowy then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, therefore the weather is not cold and snowy.
|
If the weather is cold and snowy then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
|
The weather is not cold and snowy
|
modus tollen
|
The weather is cold and snowy
|
Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
The weather is not cold and snowy
|
Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and snowy then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, therefore the weather is not cold and snowy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, as if a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat.
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
|
A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
|
Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
|
modus ponen
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat
|
Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
|
Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, as if a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then laura had installed a home security system, and laura had not installed a home security system, which establishes that the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then laura had installed a home security system
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then laura had installed a home security system, and laura had not installed a home security system, which establishes that the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cold and rainy then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and the weather is cold and rainy, which shows that laura's jewelry box was emptied.
|
If the weather is cold and rainy then laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
The weather is cold and rainy
|
Laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
modus ponen
|
The weather is cold and rainy
|
Laura's jewelry box was emptied
|
The weather is not cold and rainy
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and rainy then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and the weather is cold and rainy, which shows that laura's jewelry box was emptied.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, since if laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow and laura's car was found with a slashed tire.
|
If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
|
Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire
|
No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, since if laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow and laura's car was found with a slashed tire.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, hence a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.
|
If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire
|
A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, hence a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, thus detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.
|
If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
|
Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
|
Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit
|
Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry 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 john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, thus detective baker found 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 the car is moving then the dog is barking loudly, and the dog is not barking loudly, which implies that the car is not moving.
|
If the car is moving then the dog is barking loudly
|
The dog is not barking loudly
|
The car is not moving
|
modus tollen
|
The car is moving
|
The dog is barking loudly
|
The car is not moving
|
The dog is not barking loudly
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is moving then the dog is barking loudly, and the dog is not barking loudly, which implies that the car is not moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, as if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.
|
If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
modus tollen
|
Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, as if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of identity theft then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and john davis had a history of identity theft, which establishes that richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions.
|
If john davis had a history of identity theft then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
John davis had a history of identity theft
|
Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a history of identity theft
|
Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
John Davis did not have a history of identity theft
|
Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of identity theft then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and john davis had a history of identity theft, which establishes that richard anderson's financial records revealed 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|>
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then the cat is purring loudly, and the cat is not purring loudly, thus the weather is not mild and pleasant.
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then the cat is purring loudly
|
The cat is not purring loudly
|
The weather is not mild and pleasant
|
modus tollen
|
The weather is mild and pleasant
|
The cat is purring loudly
|
The weather is not mild and pleasant
|
The cat is not purring loudly
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is mild and pleasant then the cat is purring loudly, and the cat is not purring loudly, thus the weather is not mild and pleasant.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the baby is sleeping, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, which implies that the baby is sleeping.
|
If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the baby is sleeping
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
The baby is sleeping
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
The baby is sleeping
|
The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
|
The baby is not sleeping
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the baby is sleeping, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, which implies that the baby is sleeping.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the cat is black, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which shows that the cat is black.
|
If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the cat is black
|
Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
The cat is black
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
The cat is black
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
The cat is not black
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the cat is black, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which shows that the cat is black.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, therefore laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van.
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
modus ponen
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, therefore laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, so sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house.
|
If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
|
The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
|
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 suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, so sarah's cat was found abandoned outside 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 the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, thus the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.
|
If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
modus ponen
|
The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted
|
The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, thus the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's mail was tampered with then the sun is shining, and laura's mail was tampered with, therefore the sun is shining.
|
If laura's mail was tampered with then the sun is shining
|
Laura's mail was tampered with
|
The sun is shining
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's mail was tampered with
|
The sun is shining
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with
|
The sun is not shining
| 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 the sun is shining, and laura's mail was tampered with, therefore the sun is shining.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky, because if the sun is shining brightly overhead then the sun is setting slowly in the sky and the sun is shining brightly overhead.
|
If the sun is shining brightly overhead then the sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The sun is shining brightly overhead
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
modus ponen
|
The sun is shining brightly overhead
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The sun is not shining brightly overhead
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is setting slowly in the sky, because if the sun is shining brightly overhead then the sun is setting slowly in the sky 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|>
|
No hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, because if a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle and a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.
|
If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
|
No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
|
modus tollen
|
A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
|
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: ```No hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, because if a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle and a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, as if the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m.
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
|
The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
|
The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
|
modus ponen
|
The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
|
The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
|
The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
|
The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, as if the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a history of substance abuse, since if the tree is tall then john davis had a history of substance abuse and the tree is tall.
|
If the tree is tall then john davis had a history of substance abuse
|
The tree is tall
|
John Davis had a history of substance abuse
|
modus ponen
|
The tree is tall
|
John Davis had a history of substance abuse
|
The tree is not tall
|
John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a history of substance abuse, since if the tree is tall then john davis had a history of substance abuse and the tree is tall.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cold and snowy then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and the weather is cold and snowy, which establishes that a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction.
|
If the weather is cold and snowy then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
The weather is cold and snowy
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
modus ponen
|
The weather is cold and snowy
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
The weather is not cold and snowy
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and snowy then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and the weather is cold and snowy, which establishes that a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, thus john davis had a history of stalking other women.
|
If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then john davis had a history of stalking other women
|
John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
|
John Davis had a history of stalking other women
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
|
John Davis had a history of stalking other women
|
John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, thus john davis had a history of stalking other women.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker, hence laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions.
|
If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
|
Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
|
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 laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker, hence 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|>
|
If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, therefore the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery.
|
If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery
|
modus tollen
|
The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery
|
A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery
|
No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, therefore the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, thus emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
|
The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
modus tollen
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, thus emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, so laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van.
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
|
A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
|
A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, so laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, which implies that a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument.
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument
|
A shattered vase was found in the hallway
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument
|
modus ponen
|
A shattered vase was found in the hallway
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument
|
A shattered vase was not found in the hallway
|
A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
| 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 neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, which implies that a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, as if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder and emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.
|
If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
|
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: ```The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, as if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder and emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a biography then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and the book is a biography, so the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage.
|
If the book is a biography then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
|
The book is a biography
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
|
modus ponen
|
The book is a biography
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
|
The book is not a biography
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a biography then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and the book is a biography, so the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the bird is singing, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, so the bird is singing.
|
If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the bird is singing
|
The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
The bird is singing
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
The bird is singing
|
The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
|
The bird is not singing
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the bird is singing, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, so the bird is 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 fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which implies that emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
|
Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
|
modus tollen
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
|
Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
|
Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
| 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 fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which implies that emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the sun is shining brightly, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, therefore the sun is shining brightly.
|
If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the sun is shining brightly
|
A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
|
The sun is shining brightly
|
modus ponen
|
A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
The sun is shining brightly
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
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 a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the sun is shining brightly, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, therefore the sun is shining brightly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, which shows that the sun is not setting slowly.
|
If the sun is setting slowly then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow
|
No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow
|
The sun is not setting slowly
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is setting slowly
|
A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
|
The sun is not setting slowly
|
No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, which shows that the sun is not setting slowly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, thus no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
modus tollen
|
A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, thus no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, as if emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky.
|
If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky
|
A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect'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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, as if emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing and 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 suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, so a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house.
|
If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house
|
The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim
|
A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, so a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, so emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate.
|
If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
|
Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, so emily had 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 eiffel tower is in paris, as if a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the eiffel tower is in paris and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.
|
If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the eiffel tower is in paris
|
A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house
|
The Eiffel Tower is in Paris
|
modus ponen
|
A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
|
The Eiffel Tower is in Paris
|
No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
|
The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The eiffel tower is in paris, as if a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the eiffel tower is in paris and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If dogs are not fish then john davis had bruises on his arms, and dogs are not fish, so john davis had bruises on his arms.
|
If dogs are not fish then john davis had bruises on his arms
|
Dogs are not fish
|
John Davis had bruises on his arms
|
modus ponen
|
Dogs are not fish
|
John Davis had bruises on his arms
|
Dogs are fish
|
John Davis did not have bruises on his arms
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If dogs are not fish then john davis had bruises on his arms, and dogs are not fish, so john davis had bruises on his arms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Water is not h2o, because if water is h2o then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene.
|
If water is h2o then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene
|
A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
|
Water is not H2O
|
modus tollen
|
Water is H2O
|
A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
|
Water is not H2O
|
A stolen car was not reported 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: ```Water is not h2o, because if water is h2o then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, so a security camera captured the suspect entering the building.
|
If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
modus ponen
|
Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, so a security camera captured the suspect entering the building.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, because if john davis had a history of identity theft then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car and john davis had a history of identity theft.
|
If john davis had a history of identity theft then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
John davis had a history of identity theft
|
A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a history of identity theft
|
A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
John Davis did not have a history of identity theft
|
A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, because if john davis had a history of identity theft then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car and john davis had a history of identity theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not purring contentedly, as if the cat is purring contentedly then the dog is barking at the mailman and the dog is not barking at the mailman.
|
If the cat is purring contentedly then the dog is barking at the mailman
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman
|
The cat is not purring contentedly
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is purring contentedly
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
The cat is not purring contentedly
|
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: ```The cat is not purring contentedly, as if the cat is purring contentedly then the dog is barking at the mailman and the dog is not barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, so no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.
|
If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
modus tollen
|
A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, so no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, therefore a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily.
|
If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
|
modus tollen
|
A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, therefore a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Water is h2o, since if the movie is a sports film then water is h2o and the movie is a sports film.
|
If the movie is a sports film then water is h2o
|
The movie is a sports film
|
Water is H2O
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a sports film
|
Water is H2O
|
The movie is not a sports film
|
Water is not H2O
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Water is h2o, since if the movie is a sports film then water is h2o and the movie is a sports film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the movie is a documentary, and the movie is not a documentary, thus surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.
|
If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the movie is a documentary
|
The movie is not a documentary
|
Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
|
modus tollen
|
Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
|
The movie is a documentary
|
Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
|
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 surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the movie is a documentary, and the movie is not a documentary, thus surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the dog is barking loudly, and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, thus the dog is barking loudly.
|
If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the dog is barking loudly
|
Detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
|
The dog is barking loudly
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
|
The dog is barking loudly
|
Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
|
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 detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the dog is barking loudly, and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, thus the dog is barking loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which implies that the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which implies that the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, as if the dog is barking at the dog next door then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror and the dog is barking at the dog next door.
|
If the dog is barking at the dog next door then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror
|
The dog is barking at the dog next door
|
The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking at the dog next door
|
The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror
|
The dog is not barking at the dog next door
|
The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror
| 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 grooming itself in front of the mirror, as if the dog is barking at the dog next door then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror and the dog is barking at the dog next door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and john davis did not have a history of stalking other women, thus the sun is not shining.
|
If the sun is shining then john davis had a history of stalking other women
|
John davis did not have a history of stalking other women
|
The sun is not shining
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is shining
|
John Davis had a history of stalking other women
|
The sun is not shining
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and john davis did not have a history of stalking other women, thus the sun is not shining.```<|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 anger management issues then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, therefore the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago.
|
If john davis had a history of anger management issues then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
|
John davis had a history of anger management issues
|
The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a history of anger management issues
|
The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
|
John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues
|
The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago
| 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 anger management issues then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, therefore the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago.```<|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 parked in the garage then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and no bloody footprint was found in the living room, which establishes that the car is not parked in the garage.
|
If the car is parked in the garage then a bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
The car is not parked in the garage
|
modus tollen
|
The car is parked in the garage
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
The car is not parked in the garage
|
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 car is parked in the garage then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and no bloody footprint was found in the living room, which establishes that the car is not parked in the garage.```<|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 hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, as if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the book is a mystery novel and the book is not a mystery novel.
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the book is a mystery novel
|
The book is not a mystery novel
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
modus tollen
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
The book is a mystery novel
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
The book is not a mystery novel
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, as if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the book is a mystery novel and the book is not a mystery novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, which establishes that the suspect had a history of violence against the victim.
|
If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim
|
The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
|
The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
|
The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
|
The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data
|
The suspect did not have a history of violence 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 victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, which establishes that the suspect had a history of violence against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with toys then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, and the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain, which shows that the baby is not playing with toys.
|
If the baby is playing with toys then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
The baby is not playing with toys
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is playing with toys
|
The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
The baby is not playing with toys
|
The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with toys then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, and the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain, which shows that the baby is not playing with toys.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction, so it can be concluded that laura's car was not found with a slashed tire.
|
If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
A jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
|
Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction, so it can be concluded that laura's car was not found with a slashed tire.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is a horror film, because if the baby is crying in the car then the movie is a horror film and the baby is crying in the car.
|
If the baby is crying in the car then the movie is a horror film
|
The baby is crying in the car
|
The movie is a horror film
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is crying in the car
|
The movie is a horror film
|
The baby is not crying in the car
|
The movie is not a horror film
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is a horror film, because if the baby is crying in the car then the movie is a horror film and the baby is crying in the car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not a bestseller, since if the book is a bestseller then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop and emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.
|
If the book is a bestseller then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
The book is not a bestseller
|
modus tollen
|
The book is a bestseller
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
The book is not a bestseller
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not a bestseller, since if the book is a bestseller then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop and emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, because if laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization.
|
If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
|
Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
|
No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, because if laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is sleeping 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 it can be concluded that the baby is not sleeping.
|
If the baby is sleeping 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
|
The baby is not sleeping
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is sleeping
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
The baby is not sleeping
|
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 the baby is sleeping 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 it can be concluded that the baby is not sleeping.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura had not installed a home security system, as if laura had installed a home security system then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence and no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.
|
If laura had installed a home security system then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
|
modus tollen
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
|
No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
| 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence and no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.