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 the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.
|
If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street
|
The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
|
The arson occurred on Elm Street
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
|
The arson occurred on Elm Street
|
The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
|
The arson did not occur on Elm Street
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the toy 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, so it can be concluded that the baby is not crawling towards the toy.
|
If the baby is crawling towards the toy 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 baby is not crawling towards the toy
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is crawling towards the toy
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
|
The baby is not crawling towards the toy
|
Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the toy 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, so it can be concluded that the baby is not crawling towards the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, since if a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home.
|
If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
|
A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home
|
The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home
|
The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
|
The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt 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: ```The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, since if a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.
|
If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street
|
The arson did not occur on elm street
|
Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
|
modus tollen
|
Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse
|
The arson occurred on Elm Street
|
Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
|
The arson did not occur on Elm Street
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a family film then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the movie is a family film, therefore the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it.
|
If the movie is a family film then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it
|
The movie is a family film
|
The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a family film
|
The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it
|
The movie is not a family film
|
The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a family film then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the movie is a family film, therefore the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, as if a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.
|
If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair 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: ```A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, as if a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster 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 sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, which shows that sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house.
|
If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
|
Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house
|
modus tollen
|
Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
|
Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, which shows that sarah's cat was not 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 laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the book is a bestseller, and laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, which shows that the book is a bestseller.
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the book is a bestseller
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
The book is a bestseller
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
The book is a bestseller
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
|
The book is not a bestseller
| 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 book is a bestseller, and laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, which shows that the book is a bestseller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the baby is crying in the car, and the baby is not crying in the car, which implies that the murder weapon was not a baseball bat.
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the baby is crying in the car
|
The baby is not crying in the car
|
The murder weapon was not a baseball bat
|
modus tollen
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
The baby is crying in the car
|
The murder weapon was not a baseball bat
|
The baby is not crying in the car
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the baby is crying in the car, and the baby is not crying in the car, which implies that the murder weapon was not a baseball bat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, as if the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents and john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents.
|
If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents
|
John davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents
|
The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents
|
The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
|
John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, as if the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents and john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, hence surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
|
Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
modus ponen
|
The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
|
Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
|
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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, hence surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
It is raining today, because if john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then it is raining today and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit.
|
If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then it is raining today
|
John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
|
It is raining today
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
|
It is raining today
|
John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit
|
It is not raining today
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```It is raining today, because if john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then it is raining today and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and no witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, so laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed.
|
If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
|
No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and no witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, so laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's name is laura martinez then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and the victim's name is laura martinez, so a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.
|
If the victim's name is laura martinez then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
The victim's name is laura martinez
|
A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's name is Laura Martinez
|
A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
The victim's name is not Laura Martinez
|
No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's name is laura martinez then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and the victim's name is laura martinez, so a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, hence john davis did not have bruises on his arms.
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
|
Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
|
John Davis did not have bruises on his arms
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had bruises on his arms
|
Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
|
John Davis did not have bruises on his arms
|
Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had bruises on his arms then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, hence john davis did not have 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|>
|
A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, because if the weather is nice then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily and the weather is nice.
|
If the weather is nice then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily
|
The weather is nice
|
A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily
|
modus ponen
|
The weather is nice
|
A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily
|
The weather is not nice
|
A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, because if the weather is nice then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily and the weather is nice.```<|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 science fiction film then the sun is shining, and the movie is a science fiction film, therefore the sun is shining.
|
If the movie is a science fiction film then the sun is shining
|
The movie is a science fiction film
|
The sun is shining
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a science fiction film
|
The sun is shining
|
The movie is not a science fiction film
|
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 the movie is a science fiction film then the sun is shining, and the movie is a science fiction film, 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|>
|
If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the cat is purring contentedly, and the cat is not purring contentedly, which shows that a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.
|
If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the cat is purring contentedly
|
The cat is not purring contentedly
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
|
modus tollen
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
|
The cat is purring contentedly
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
|
The cat is not purring contentedly
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the cat is purring contentedly, and the cat is not purring contentedly, which shows that a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, since if detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office and no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.
|
If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
modus tollen
|
Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, since if detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office and no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, because if john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest.
|
If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
|
John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime
|
John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
|
The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, because if john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, which shows that a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard.
|
If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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
|
A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard
|
modus tollen
|
A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard
|
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 a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, which shows that a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased, since if the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene and no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.
|
If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
|
modus tollen
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased
|
No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased, since if the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene and no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the bird is singing then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and the bird is singing, hence the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed.
|
If the bird is singing then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed
|
The bird is singing
|
The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed
|
modus ponen
|
The bird is singing
|
The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed
|
The bird is not singing
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the bird is singing then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and the bird is singing, hence the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, since if emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky.
|
If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky
|
Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder
|
modus tollen
|
Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, since if emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not 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 a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the baby is sleeping, and the baby is not sleeping, which establishes that no bloody footprint was found in the living room.
|
If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the baby is sleeping
|
The baby is not sleeping
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
modus tollen
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
The baby is sleeping
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
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 a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the baby is sleeping, and the baby is not sleeping, which establishes that no bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a romance novel then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, and laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, which establishes that the book is not a romance novel.
|
If the book is a romance novel then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors
|
The book is not a romance novel
|
modus tollen
|
The book is a romance novel
|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
|
The book is not a romance novel
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a romance novel then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, and laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, which establishes that the book is not a romance 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 a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, which implies that a neighbor heard a gunshot.
|
If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then a neighbor heard a gunshot
|
A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot
|
modus ponen
|
A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot
|
No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, which implies that a neighbor heard a gunshot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, hence richard anderson had a history of financial troubles.
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles
|
modus ponen
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
|
Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, hence richard anderson had a history of financial troubles.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is not barking at the mail truck, therefore the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk.
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then the dog is barking at the mail truck
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
|
The dog is barking at the mail truck
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is not barking at the mail truck, therefore the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, and emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, so no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder
|
Emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
modus tollen
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, and emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, so no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, and the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number, which shows that the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data.
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
|
The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
|
The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
| 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 missing laptop contained confidential company data then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, and the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number, which shows that the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, therefore a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, therefore a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, thus a broken window was found in laura's bedroom.
|
If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom
|
A neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house
|
A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, thus a broken window was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping soundly then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, which implies that the cat is not sleeping soundly.
|
If the cat is sleeping soundly then laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is sleeping soundly
|
Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly
|
Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping soundly then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, which implies that the cat is not sleeping soundly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which implies that detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
|
modus ponen
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
|
A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which implies that detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, so it can be concluded that the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
|
Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
|
The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
|
The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
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 suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, so it can be concluded that the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining through the window then john davis had a history of financial problems, and john davis did not have a history of financial problems, so the sun is not shining through the window.
|
If the sun is shining through the window then john davis had a history of financial problems
|
John davis did not have a history of financial problems
|
The sun is not shining through the window
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is shining through the window
|
John Davis had a history of financial problems
|
The sun is not shining through the window
|
John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining through the window then john davis had a history of financial problems, and john davis did not have a history of financial problems, so the sun is not shining through the window.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and a broken chair was not found in the kitchen, which establishes that a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a broken chair was found in the kitchen
|
A broken chair was not found in the kitchen
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
A broken chair was found in the kitchen
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
|
A broken chair was not found in the kitchen
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and a broken chair was not found in the kitchen, which establishes that a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, since if the dog is barking at the stranger then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder and the dog is barking at the stranger.
|
If the dog is barking at the stranger then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
The dog is barking at the stranger
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking at the stranger
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
The dog is not barking at the stranger
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, since if the dog is barking at the stranger then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder and the dog is barking at the stranger.```<|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 dogs are not fish, and dogs are fish, which implies that 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 dogs are not fish
|
Dogs are fish
|
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
|
Dogs are not fish
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
Dogs are fish
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then dogs are not fish, and dogs are fish, which implies that 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 the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, so it can be concluded that the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns.
|
If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions
|
Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
|
The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
modus tollen
|
The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions
|
The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
Laura's bank accounts did not show 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 victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, so it can be concluded that the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, since if the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.
|
If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
|
modus ponen
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
|
The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, since if the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, since if surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
modus ponen
|
Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime
|
No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, since if surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning and 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 john davis had a history of identity theft then the cat is purring loudly, and the cat is not purring loudly, which establishes that john davis did not have a history of identity theft.
|
If john davis had a history of identity theft then the cat is purring loudly
|
The cat is not purring loudly
|
John Davis did not have a history of identity theft
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a history of identity theft
|
The cat is purring loudly
|
John Davis did not have a history of identity theft
|
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 john davis had a history of identity theft then the cat is purring loudly, and the cat is not purring loudly, which establishes that john davis did not have a history of identity theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, because if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop and no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
|
No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, because if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop and no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, which implies that the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.
|
If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then the sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, which implies that the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of substance abuse then laura's house was booby-trapped, and laura's house was not booby-trapped, which shows that john davis did not have a history of substance abuse.
|
If john davis had a history of substance abuse then laura's house was booby-trapped
|
Laura's house was not booby-trapped
|
John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a history of substance abuse
|
Laura's house was booby-trapped
|
John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse
|
Laura's house was not booby-trapped
| 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 substance abuse then laura's house was booby-trapped, and laura's house was not booby-trapped, which shows that john davis did not have a history of substance abuse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, and officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store, so it can be concluded that detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.
|
If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
|
Officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
|
Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
modus tollen
|
Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
|
Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, and officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store, so it can be concluded that detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and the suspect's name is john davis, therefore a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
The suspect's name is john davis
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's name is John Davis
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
The suspect's name is not John Davis
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's name is john davis then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and the suspect's name is john davis, therefore a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and no bloody footprint was found in the living room, so sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.
|
If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then a bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
|
modus tollen
|
Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy
|
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 sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and no bloody footprint was found in the living room, so sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's pet cat is missing, as if a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then laura's pet cat is missing and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.
|
If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then laura's pet cat is missing
|
A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
Laura's pet cat is missing
|
modus ponen
|
A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
Laura's pet cat is missing
|
No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene
|
Laura's pet cat is not missing
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's pet cat is missing, as if a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then laura's pet cat is missing and 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|>
|
Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization, because if laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues and john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues.
|
If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues
|
John davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues
|
Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues
|
Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
|
John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization, because if laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues and john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, so a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.
|
If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
modus ponen
|
Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, so a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, and no bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, hence no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard.
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
|
No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard
|
modus tollen
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard
|
A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard
|
No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, and no bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, hence no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, since if sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house.
|
If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
|
Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
|
Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
|
modus ponen
|
Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
|
Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
|
Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house
|
Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, since if sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the movie is a thriller, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, which shows that the movie is a thriller.
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the movie is a thriller
|
A shattered vase was found in the hallway
|
The movie is a thriller
|
modus ponen
|
A shattered vase was found in the hallway
|
The movie is a thriller
|
A shattered vase was not found in the hallway
|
The movie is not a thriller
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the movie is a thriller, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, which shows that the movie is a thriller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, hence detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects.
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom
|
Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
modus ponen
|
A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, hence detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a horror film then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, and the movie is a horror film, therefore emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder.
|
If the movie is a horror film then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder
|
The movie is a horror film
|
Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a horror film
|
Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
|
The movie is not a horror film
|
Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day 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 movie is a horror film then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, and the movie is a horror film, therefore emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The car is parked on the street, since if john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the car is parked on the street and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past.
|
If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the car is parked on the street
|
John davis had a restraining order violation in the past
|
The car is parked on the street
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past
|
The car is parked on the street
|
John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
|
The car is not parked on the street
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is parked on the street, since if john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the car is parked on the street and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, hence laura's car was not found with a slashed tire.
|
If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire
|
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 laura's car was found with a slashed tire then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, hence 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|>
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, which establishes that the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses.
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information
|
The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, which establishes that the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, because if a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the movie is a comedy-drama and the movie is not a comedy-drama.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the movie is a comedy-drama
|
The movie is not a comedy-drama
|
No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
The movie is a comedy-drama
|
No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
The movie is not a comedy-drama
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, because if a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the movie is a comedy-drama and the movie is not a comedy-drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The tree is not shedding leaves, since if the tree is shedding leaves then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home and the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home.
|
If the tree is shedding leaves then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
|
The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
|
The tree is not shedding leaves
|
modus tollen
|
The tree is shedding leaves
|
The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
|
The tree is not shedding leaves
|
The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The tree is not shedding leaves, since if the tree is shedding leaves then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home and the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, as if laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker.
|
If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, as if laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which shows that officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.
|
If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
|
A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
|
Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
|
modus ponen
|
A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which shows that officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is moving then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, so it can be concluded that the car is not moving.
|
If the car is moving then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
|
John davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs
|
The car is not moving
|
modus tollen
|
The car is moving
|
John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
|
The car is not moving
|
John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs
| 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 john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, so it can be concluded 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|>
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, hence the suspect had a history of mental health issues.
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
The suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
The suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
|
The suspect had no history of mental health issues
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, hence the suspect had a history of mental health issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, since if a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.
|
If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
modus tollen
|
A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, since if a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's prescription medications were stolen then john davis had a secret storage unit, and john davis did not have a secret storage unit, so laura's prescription medications were not stolen.
|
If laura's prescription medications were stolen then john davis had a secret storage unit
|
John davis did not have a secret storage unit
|
Laura's prescription medications were not stolen
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's prescription medications were stolen
|
John Davis had a secret storage unit
|
Laura's prescription medications were not stolen
|
John Davis did not have a secret storage unit
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's prescription medications were stolen then john davis had a secret storage unit, and john davis did not have a secret storage unit, so laura's prescription medications were not stolen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the bird is singing, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, therefore the bird is singing.
|
If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the bird is singing
|
A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
|
The bird is singing
|
modus ponen
|
A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
The bird is singing
|
No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
The bird is not singing
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the bird is singing, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, therefore 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 john davis had a history of identity theft then laura's house was booby-trapped, and john davis had a history of identity theft, which implies that laura's house was booby-trapped.
|
If john davis had a history of identity theft then laura's house was booby-trapped
|
John davis had a history of identity theft
|
Laura's house was booby-trapped
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a history of identity theft
|
Laura's house was booby-trapped
|
John Davis did not have a history of identity theft
|
Laura's house was not booby-trapped
| 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 laura's house was booby-trapped, and john davis had a history of identity theft, which implies that laura's house was booby-trapped.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, because if a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene and no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.
|
If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
modus tollen
|
A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, because if a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene and no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, hence john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone.
|
If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone
|
John davis had recently purchased a firearm
|
John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had recently purchased a firearm
|
John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone
|
John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm
|
John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, hence john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, so a neighbor heard a gunshot.
|
If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a neighbor heard a gunshot
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot
|
modus ponen
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
|
A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, so a neighbor heard a gunshot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, as if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.
|
If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, as if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, because if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene and no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.
|
If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
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
|
A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
|
No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, because if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene and 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|>
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, since if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment and a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
|
A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
modus tollen
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, since if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment and a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is black then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, hence the cat is not black.
|
If the cat is black then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home
|
A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home
|
The cat is not black
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is black
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home
|
The cat is not black
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is black then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, hence the cat is not black.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, as if the dog is barking at the mail truck then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe and the dog is barking at the mail truck.
|
If the dog is barking at the mail truck then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
|
The dog is barking at the mail truck
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking at the mail truck
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck
|
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, as if the dog is barking at the mail truck then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe and the dog is barking at the mail truck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, because if emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.
|
If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
|
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
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, because if emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, so the baby is crawling towards the cat.
|
If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the baby is crawling towards the cat
|
Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
The baby is crawling towards the cat
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
The baby is crawling towards the cat
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
The baby is not crawling towards the cat
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, so the baby is crawling towards the cat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, thus no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past
|
John davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
|
No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past
|
No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, thus no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked 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, therefore laura's social media accounts were not hacked.
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked 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
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
|
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 laura's social media accounts were hacked 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, therefore laura's social media accounts were not hacked.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky, thus a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky, thus a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, which implies that a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
|
The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
|
A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
|
A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
|
No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, which implies that a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the building, therefore the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.
|
If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the building, therefore the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then the book is interesting, and the book is not interesting, hence sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder.
|
If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then the book is interesting
|
The book is not interesting
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
|
modus tollen
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
The book is interesting
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
|
The book is not interesting
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then the book is interesting, and the book is not interesting, hence sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is grooming itself then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and the cat is grooming itself, so it can be concluded that detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse.
|
If the cat is grooming itself then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
|
The cat is grooming itself
|
Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is grooming itself
|
Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse
|
The cat is not grooming itself
|
Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is grooming itself then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and the cat is grooming itself, so it can be concluded that detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse.```<|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 victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, thus surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
|
The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
modus tollen
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, thus surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cloudy and rainy 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, so it can be concluded that the weather is not cloudy and rainy.
|
If the weather is cloudy and rainy then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
The weather is not cloudy and rainy
|
modus tollen
|
The weather is cloudy and rainy
|
The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
The weather is not cloudy and rainy
|
The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cloudy and rainy 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, so it can be concluded that the weather is not cloudy and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, thus detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.
|
If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions
|
Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
|
Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
|
modus tollen
|
Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
|
Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions
|
Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
|
Laura's bank accounts did not show 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 detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, thus detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, as if the movie is a family film then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily and the movie is a family film.
|
If the movie is a family film then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily
|
The movie is a family film
|
Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a family film
|
Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily
|
The movie is not a family film
|
Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, as if the movie is a family film then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily and the movie is a family 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 officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the baby is crawling towards the door, and the baby is not crawling towards the door, which establishes that officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.
|
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the baby is crawling towards the door
|
The baby is not crawling towards the door
|
Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
|
The baby is crawling towards the door
|
Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
|
The baby is not crawling towards the door
| 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 found a broken window at the crime scene then the baby is crawling towards the door, and the baby is not crawling towards the door, which establishes that officer smith did not find a broken window 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 homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo, as if a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop.
|
If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
|
A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
|
modus tollen
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo
|
A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
|
A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo, as if a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a 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 the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, which establishes that a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.
|
If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, which establishes that a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the movie is a sports film, and the movie is not a sports film, which establishes that no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.
|
If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the movie is a sports film
|
The movie is not a sports film
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
modus tollen
|
A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
The movie is a sports film
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
The movie is not a sports film
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the movie is a sports film, and the movie is not a sports film, which establishes that no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a biography then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and the book is a biography, which implies that the cat is purring contentedly on my lap.
|
If the book is a biography then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
The book is a biography
|
The cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
modus ponen
|
The book is a biography
|
The cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
The book is not a biography
|
The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a biography then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and the book is a biography, which implies that the cat is purring contentedly on my lap.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the eiffel tower is in paris then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, so it can be concluded that the eiffel tower is not in paris.
|
If the eiffel tower is in paris then the book is written by a famous author
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
|
modus tollen
|
The Eiffel Tower is in Paris
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
|
The book is not written by a famous author
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the eiffel tower is in paris then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, so it can be concluded that the eiffel tower is not in paris.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the squirrel then the dog is barking, and the dog is not barking, which shows that the dog is not barking at the squirrel.
|
If the dog is barking at the squirrel then the dog is barking
|
The dog is not barking
|
The dog is not barking at the squirrel
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking at the squirrel
|
The dog is barking
|
The dog is not barking at the squirrel
|
The dog is not barking
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the squirrel then the dog is barking, and the dog is not barking, which shows that the dog is not barking at the squirrel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then laura's wedding ring is missing, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, which shows that laura's wedding ring is missing.
|
If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then laura's wedding ring is missing
|
Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house
|
Laura's wedding ring is missing
|
modus ponen
|
Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
|
Laura's wedding ring is missing
|
Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
|
Laura's wedding ring is not missing
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then laura's wedding ring is missing, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, which shows that laura's wedding ring is missing.```<|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.