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 a bloody footprint was found in the living room then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident, which shows that no bloody footprint was found in the living room.
|
If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident
|
Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
modus tollen
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident, which shows 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 suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, hence a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair.
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
|
The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
|
The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, hence a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted 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|>
|
If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which shows that the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years.
|
If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
modus ponen
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which shows that the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, which establishes that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky.
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the dog is barking at the mailman
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, which establishes that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, as if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar and surveillance footage shows 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 a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar
|
modus ponen
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, as if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, which establishes that no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.
|
If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then the sun is setting slowly
|
The sun is not setting slowly
|
No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
|
modus tollen
|
A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
|
The sun is setting slowly
|
No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen
|
The sun is not setting slowly
| 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 message was left on laura's computer screen then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, which establishes that no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, since if john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs.
|
If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees
|
John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
|
The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
|
The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees
|
John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs
|
The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, since if john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of anger management issues then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, which implies that john davis did not have a history of anger management issues.
|
If john davis had a history of anger management issues then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
|
Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house
|
John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a history of anger management issues
|
Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house
|
John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues
|
Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of anger management issues then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, which implies that john davis did not have a history of anger management issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a comedy-drama then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, thus the movie is not a comedy-drama.
|
If the movie is a comedy-drama then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
The movie is not a comedy-drama
|
modus tollen
|
The movie is a comedy-drama
|
The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
The movie is not a comedy-drama
|
The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a comedy-drama then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, thus 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|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, which establishes that the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, which establishes that the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is playing with toys, since if a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then the baby is playing with toys and a 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 the baby is playing with toys
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
The baby is playing with toys
|
modus ponen
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
The baby is playing with toys
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
The baby is not playing with toys
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is playing with toys, since if a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then the baby is playing with toys and 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 surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the sky is blue, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, which shows that the sky is blue.
|
If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the sky is blue
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
The sky is blue
|
modus ponen
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
The sky is blue
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
The sky is not blue
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the sky is blue, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, which shows that the sky is blue.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is setting slowly, because if laura's mail was tampered with then the sun is setting slowly and laura's mail was tampered with.
|
If laura's mail was tampered with then the sun is setting slowly
|
Laura's mail was tampered with
|
The sun is setting slowly
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's mail was tampered with
|
The sun is setting slowly
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with
|
The sun is not setting slowly
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is setting slowly, because if laura's mail was tampered with then the sun is setting slowly and laura's mail was tampered with.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked, as if laura's social media accounts were hacked 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 laura's social media accounts were hacked 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
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
|
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: ```Laura's social media accounts were not hacked, as if laura's social media accounts were hacked 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|>
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, because if emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop 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.
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder
|
Emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder
|
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
|
Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
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: ```Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, because if emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, therefore the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain.
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
|
The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
modus tollen
|
The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, therefore the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then water is h2o, and the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, hence water is h2o.
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then water is h2o
|
The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
Water is H2O
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
Water is H2O
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
Water is not H2O
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then water is h2o, and the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, hence water is h2o.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is drinking from a bottle then the dog is barking, and the dog is not barking, which shows that the baby is not drinking from a bottle.
|
If the baby is drinking from a bottle then the dog is barking
|
The dog is not barking
|
The baby is not drinking from a bottle
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is drinking from a bottle
|
The dog is barking
|
The baby is not drinking from a bottle
|
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 baby is drinking from a bottle then the dog is barking, and the dog is not barking, which shows that the baby is not drinking from a bottle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, so it can be concluded that a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession.
|
If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession
|
John davis had a history of violating restraining orders
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession
|
John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, so it can be concluded that a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with blocks then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, which establishes that the baby is not playing with blocks.
|
If the baby is playing with blocks then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
The baby is not playing with blocks
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is playing with blocks
|
The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
The baby is not playing with blocks
|
The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with blocks then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, which establishes that the baby is not playing with blocks.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the book is interesting, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, which implies that the book is interesting.
|
If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the book is interesting
|
A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
The book is interesting
|
modus ponen
|
A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
The book is interesting
|
No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
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 a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the book is interesting, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, which implies that the book is interesting.```<|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 therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, so sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.
|
If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily
|
modus tollen
|
Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily
|
Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, so sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the dog is barking at the mailman, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, which shows that the dog is barking at the mailman.
|
If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the dog is barking at the mailman
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the dog is barking at the mailman, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, which shows that the dog is barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, and emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, so it can be concluded that the baby is not crawling.
|
If the baby is crawling then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
The baby is not crawling
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is crawling
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
The baby is not crawling
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, and emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, so it can be concluded that the baby is not crawling.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The arson did not occur on elm street, as if the arson occurred on elm street then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders and john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders.
|
If the arson occurred on elm street then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders
|
John davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders
|
The arson did not occur on Elm Street
|
modus tollen
|
The arson occurred on Elm Street
|
John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders
|
The arson did not occur on Elm Street
|
John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The arson did not occur on elm street, as if the arson occurred on elm street then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders and john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders.```<|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 the movie is a horror film, and the movie is not a horror film, so it can be concluded that the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.
|
If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the movie is a horror film
|
The movie is not a horror film
|
The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
The movie is a horror film
|
The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
The movie is not a horror film
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the movie is a horror film, and the movie is not a horror film, so it can be concluded that the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, as if a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then it is raining today and it is not raining today.
|
If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then it is raining today
|
It is not raining today
|
No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
|
modus tollen
|
A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
|
It is raining today
|
No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
|
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: ```No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, as if a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then it is raining today and it is not raining today.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the phone is ringing then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder, so it can be concluded that the phone is not ringing.
|
If the phone is ringing then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
Sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
|
The phone is not ringing
|
modus tollen
|
The phone is ringing
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
The phone is not ringing
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the phone is ringing then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder, so it can be concluded that the phone is not ringing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the weather is not cloudy and rainy, which implies that no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the weather is cloudy and rainy
|
The weather is not cloudy and rainy
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
modus tollen
|
A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
The weather is cloudy and rainy
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
The weather is not cloudy and rainy
| 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 the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the weather is not cloudy and rainy, which implies that no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a comedy-drama then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, which shows that the movie is not a comedy-drama.
|
If the movie is a comedy-drama then laura had recently changed her social media passwords
|
Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords
|
The movie is not a comedy-drama
|
modus tollen
|
The movie is a comedy-drama
|
Laura had recently changed her social media passwords
|
The movie is not a comedy-drama
|
Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a comedy-drama then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, which shows that 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|>
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then laura's phone records show calls to 911, and laura's phone records do not show calls to 911, hence john davis did not have bruises on his arms.
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then laura's phone records show calls to 911
|
Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
|
John Davis did not have bruises on his arms
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had bruises on his arms
|
Laura's phone records show calls to 911
|
John Davis did not have bruises on his arms
|
Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
| 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 laura's phone records show calls to 911, and laura's phone records do not show calls to 911, 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|>
|
If the baby is teething on a toy then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and the baby is teething on a toy, which shows that laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats.
|
If the baby is teething on a toy then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
|
The baby is teething on a toy
|
Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is teething on a toy
|
Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
|
The baby is not teething on a toy
|
Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats
| 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 teething on a toy then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and the baby is teething on a toy, which shows that laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats.```<|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 history of using aliases and false identities, as if laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats.
|
If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats
|
The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
| 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 history of using aliases and false identities, as if laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats.```<|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 dog was found locked in a closet then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene, thus laura's dog was not found locked in a closet.
|
If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene
|
Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet
|
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: ```If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene, thus laura's dog was not found locked in a closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the bestseller list then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and the book is on the bestseller list, which shows that a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house.
|
If the book is on the bestseller list then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house
|
The book is on the bestseller list
|
A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
modus ponen
|
The book is on the bestseller list
|
A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
The book is not on the bestseller list
|
A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the bestseller list then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and the book is on the bestseller list, which shows that a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring then the dog is happy, and the dog is not happy, therefore the cat is not purring.
|
If the cat is purring then the dog is happy
|
The dog is not happy
|
The cat is not purring
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is purring
|
The dog is happy
|
The cat is not purring
|
The dog is not happy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring then the dog is happy, and the dog is not happy, therefore the cat is not purring.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, because if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park and no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.
|
If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
No witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
|
A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
|
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: ```The suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, because if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park and no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a collection of short stories then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, and the book is a collection of short stories, thus detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter.
|
If the book is a collection of short stories then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
|
The book is a collection of short stories
|
Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
|
modus ponen
|
The book is a collection of short stories
|
Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
|
The book is not a collection of short stories
|
Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a collection of short stories then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, and the book is a collection of short stories, thus detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, therefore john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.
|
If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
| 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 scratches on his face during the arrest then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, therefore john davis did not have 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|>
|
The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, since if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon and the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.
|
If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, since if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon and the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had a restraining order against the suspect, as if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.
|
If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
The victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
modus ponen
|
Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
The victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had a restraining order against the suspect, as if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, as if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily.
|
If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
modus ponen
|
A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
|
The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, as if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, therefore john davis was found with a bag of cash.
|
If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then john davis was found with a bag of cash
|
The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
John Davis was found with a bag of cash
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
John Davis was found with a bag of cash
|
The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
John Davis was not found with a bag of cash
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, therefore john davis was found with a bag of cash.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, so it can be concluded that a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene.
|
If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker
|
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: ```If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, so it can be concluded that a stolen car was 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|>
|
No witness heard screams coming from laura's house, as if a witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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.
|
If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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 heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
modus tollen
|
A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
|
No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
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: ```No witness heard screams coming from laura's house, as if a witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, which establishes that the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.
|
If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
|
The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
|
The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, which establishes that the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.```<|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 door then the movie is a sports film, and the dog is barking at the door, so the movie is a sports film.
|
If the dog is barking at the door then the movie is a sports film
|
The dog is barking at the door
|
The movie is a sports film
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking at the door
|
The movie is a sports film
|
The dog is not barking at the door
|
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 the dog is barking at the door then the movie is a sports film, and the dog is barking at the door, so the movie is a sports film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, so the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization.
|
If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
|
modus tollen
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
|
The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, so the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is parked in the garage then the movie is a musical film, and the car is parked in the garage, which establishes that the movie is a musical film.
|
If the car is parked in the garage then the movie is a musical film
|
The car is parked in the garage
|
The movie is a musical film
|
modus ponen
|
The car is parked in the garage
|
The movie is a musical film
|
The car is not parked in the garage
|
The movie is not a musical film
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is parked in the garage then the movie is a musical film, and the car is parked in the garage, which establishes that the movie is a musical film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, as if a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the dog is barking at the television and the dog is not barking at the television.
|
If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the dog is barking at the television
|
The dog is not barking at the television
|
A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
modus tollen
|
A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
The dog is barking at the television
|
A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
The dog is not barking at the television
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, as if a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the dog is barking at the television and the dog is not barking at the television.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the suspect had no history of mental health issues, hence the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home.
|
If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
The suspect had no history of mental health issues
|
The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
|
The suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
|
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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the suspect had no history of mental health issues, hence the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If cats are mammals then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, so it can be concluded that cats are not mammals.
|
If cats are mammals then emily had recently taken a self-defense course
|
Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course
|
Cats are not mammals
|
modus tollen
|
Cats are mammals
|
Emily had recently taken a self-defense course
|
Cats are not mammals
|
Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If cats are mammals then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, so it can be concluded that cats are not mammals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring contentedly then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and the cat is purring contentedly, which implies that the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors.
|
If the cat is purring contentedly then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
|
The cat is purring contentedly
|
The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is purring contentedly
|
The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
|
The cat is not purring contentedly
|
The victim had not recently changed the locks on their 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 cat is purring contentedly then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and the cat is purring contentedly, which implies that the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is grooming itself then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and the cat is grooming itself, which establishes that john davis had a history of stalking laura.
|
If the cat is grooming itself then john davis had a history of stalking laura
|
The cat is grooming itself
|
John Davis had a history of stalking Laura
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is grooming itself
|
John Davis had a history of stalking Laura
|
The cat is not grooming itself
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is grooming itself then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and the cat is grooming itself, which establishes that john davis had a history of stalking laura.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and no bloody footprint was found in the living room, which establishes that laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone.
|
If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then a bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone
|
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 laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and no bloody footprint was found in the living room, which establishes that laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then the baby is sleeping, and the weather is mild and pleasant, therefore the baby is sleeping.
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then the baby is sleeping
|
The weather is mild and pleasant
|
The baby is sleeping
|
modus ponen
|
The weather is mild and pleasant
|
The baby is sleeping
|
The weather is not mild and pleasant
|
The baby is not sleeping
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is mild and pleasant then the baby is sleeping, and the weather is mild and pleasant, therefore the baby is sleeping.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, so sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing.
|
If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing
|
Laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis
|
Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing
|
modus ponen
|
Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis
|
Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing
|
Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis
|
Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, so sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, which implies that a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession.
|
If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession
|
A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession
|
modus ponen
|
A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession
|
No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, which implies that a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, so it can be concluded that a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door.
|
If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door
|
John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone
|
A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone
|
A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door
|
John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone
|
A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, so it can be concluded that a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, because if the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon and the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
|
modus tollen
|
The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
|
The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, because if the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon and the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, so it can be concluded that a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession.
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession
|
The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession
|
modus ponen
|
The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession
|
The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
|
A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, so it can be concluded that a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, therefore a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop.
|
If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
|
Officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
|
A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
|
modus tollen
|
A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
|
Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
|
A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
|
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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, therefore 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|>
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, as if a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then laura's phone records show calls to 911 and laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.
|
If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then laura's phone records show calls to 911
|
Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
|
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
|
Laura's phone records show calls to 911
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, as if a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then laura's phone records show calls to 911 and laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.```<|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 had sarah's dna on it then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, so it can be concluded that a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.
|
If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it
|
A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
modus ponen
|
The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it
|
A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it
|
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: ```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, so it can be concluded that a 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|>
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, therefore the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
|
A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, therefore the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which establishes that the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
|
The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which establishes that the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the water is warm then dogs are not fish, and the water is warm, so it can be concluded that dogs are not fish.
|
If the water is warm then dogs are not fish
|
The water is warm
|
Dogs are not fish
|
modus ponen
|
The water is warm
|
Dogs are not fish
|
The water is not warm
|
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 the water is warm then dogs are not fish, and the water is warm, so it can be concluded that dogs are not fish.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, because if footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask and footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene.
|
If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
Footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
modus ponen
|
Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene
|
Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, because if footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask and footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, which shows that the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.
|
If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
|
The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago
|
The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
|
The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
|
The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
|
The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, which shows that the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a history of financial problems, as if john davis had a history of financial problems then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.
|
If john davis had a history of financial problems then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery
|
No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery
|
John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a history of financial problems
|
A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
|
John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
|
No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a history of financial problems, as if john davis had a history of financial problems then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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, so no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.
|
If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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
|
No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home
|
No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
|
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 a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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, so no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.```<|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 detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, thus detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.
|
If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
|
Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
|
Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse
|
Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
|
Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
|
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 detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, thus 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, which shows that surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
modus tollen
|
Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
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: ```If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, which shows that surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, thus the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
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: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, thus the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's garage door was left open then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, so laura's garage door was not left open.
|
If laura's garage door was left open then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
|
John davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe
|
Laura's garage door was not left open
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's garage door was left open
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
Laura's garage door was not left open
|
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: ```If laura's garage door was left open then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, so laura's garage door was not left open.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, thus a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.
|
If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet
|
A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
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 a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, thus a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the water is warm, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, thus the water is warm.
|
If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the water is warm
|
A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
The water is warm
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
The water is warm
|
A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
The water is not warm
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the water is warm, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, thus the water is warm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the neighbors then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, hence the dog is not barking at the neighbors.
|
If the dog is barking at the neighbors then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
The dog is not barking at the neighbors
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking at the neighbors
|
A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
The dog is not barking at the neighbors
|
No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the neighbors then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, hence the dog is not barking at the neighbors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, which establishes that sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing.
|
If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits
|
A homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
|
Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing
|
modus tollen
|
Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing
|
A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits
|
Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing
|
A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, which establishes that sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of financial problems then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and john davis had a history of financial problems, so it can be concluded that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft.
|
If john davis had a history of financial problems then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
|
John davis had a history of financial problems
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a history of financial problems
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft
|
John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of financial problems then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and john davis had a history of financial problems, so it can be concluded that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then the dog is barking at the stranger, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, therefore the dog is barking at the stranger.
|
If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then the dog is barking at the stranger
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
The dog is barking at the stranger
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
The dog is barking at the stranger
|
Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire
|
The dog is not barking at the stranger
| 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 dog is barking at the stranger, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, therefore 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 the movie is a horror film then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, therefore the movie is not a horror film.
|
If the movie is a horror film then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
|
No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
|
The movie is not a horror film
|
modus tollen
|
The movie is a horror film
|
A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
The movie is not a horror film
|
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 movie is a horror film then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, therefore the movie is not a horror 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 laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, so it can be concluded that laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization.
|
If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
|
Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, so it can be concluded that laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the car is a hybrid, and the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, which establishes that the car is a hybrid.
|
If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the car is a hybrid
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
The car is a hybrid
|
modus ponen
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
The car is a hybrid
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
|
The car is not a hybrid
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the car is a hybrid, and the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, which establishes that the car is a hybrid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the apple is red, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, which shows that the apple is red.
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the apple is red
|
The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
The apple is red
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
The apple is red
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years
|
The apple is not red
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the apple is red, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, which shows that the apple is red.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which establishes that laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
|
Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's phone records show calls to 911
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which establishes that laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the cat then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and the baby is crawling towards the cat, which establishes that a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits.
|
If the baby is crawling towards the cat then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits
|
The baby is crawling towards the cat
|
A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is crawling towards the cat
|
A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits
|
The baby is not crawling towards the cat
|
A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the cat then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and the baby is crawling towards the cat, which establishes that a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then it is raining today, and it is not raining today, which shows that no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.
|
If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then it is raining today
|
It is not raining today
|
No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
modus tollen
|
A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
It is raining today
|
No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
It is not raining today
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then it is raining today, and it is not raining today, which shows that no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone, therefore 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 laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone
|
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
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone, therefore 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|>
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, as if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
modus tollen
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, as if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a sedan then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, and the car is a sedan, so it can be concluded that a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.
|
If the car is a sedan then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe
|
The car is a sedan
|
A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
|
modus ponen
|
The car is a sedan
|
A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
|
The car is not a sedan
|
No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a sedan then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, and the car is a sedan, so it can be concluded that a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, therefore laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox
|
A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox
|
Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's phone records show calls to 911
|
A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox
|
Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
|
A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, therefore laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No broken window was found in laura's bedroom, since if a broken window was found in laura's bedroom 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.
|
If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom 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 broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
modus tollen
|
A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
|
No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
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: ```No broken window was found in laura's bedroom, since if a broken window was found in laura's bedroom 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.```<|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 claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, so it can be concluded that john davis had a history of stalking laura.
|
If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then john davis had a history of stalking laura
|
A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
John Davis had a history of stalking Laura
|
modus ponen
|
A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
John Davis had a history of stalking Laura
|
A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, so it can be concluded that john davis had a history of stalking laura.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, hence 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 the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
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
|
The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, hence 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|>
|
The victim's name is sarah mitchell, because if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the victim's name is sarah mitchell and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization.
|
If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the victim's name is sarah mitchell
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
|
The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell
|
modus ponen
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
|
The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
|
The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's name is sarah mitchell, because if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the victim's name is sarah mitchell and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, which implies that the dog is barking at the squirrel.
|
If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the dog is barking at the squirrel
|
The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
|
The dog is barking at the squirrel
|
modus ponen
|
The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
|
The dog is barking at the squirrel
|
The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker
|
The dog is not barking at the squirrel
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, which implies that the dog is 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|>
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, because if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily.
|
If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
modus ponen
|
A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
|
The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, because if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, because if the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause.
|
If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard
|
The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
|
A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
|
A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
|
The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
|
No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, because if the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet 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 officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.
|
If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet 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
|
Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
|
modus tollen
|
Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
|
The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
|
Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
|
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 officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet 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 officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.