Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street. stringlengths 74 421 | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street stringlengths 36 192 | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 788 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street stringclasses 788 values | modus ponen stringclasses 2 values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1 stringclasses 394 values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street stringclasses 394 values | True bool 1 class | text stringlengths 453 800 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, which shows that richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery. | If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery | The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | modus ponen | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, which shows that richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, which implies that the stolen van was registered in a fake name. | If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | modus ponen | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, which implies that the stolen van was registered in a fake name.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, because if a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect and the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect. | If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | modus tollen | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, because if a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect and the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the football is round then the book is on the table, and the book is not on the table, so the football is not round. | If the football is round then the book is on the table | The book is not on the table | The football is not round | modus tollen | The football is round | The book is on the table | The football is not round | The book is not on the table | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the football is round then the book is on the table, and the book is not on the table, so the football is not round.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, since if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors. | If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | 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: ```The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, since if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone, so it can be concluded that laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats. | If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | modus tollen | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | 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 laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone, so it can be concluded that laura's family did not report 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|>
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the building, as if a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | John davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | modus tollen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | 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: ```No security camera captured the suspect entering the building, as if a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's 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 surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the victim's name is laura martinez, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, so the victim's name is laura martinez. | If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the victim's name is laura martinez | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the victim's name is laura martinez, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, so the victim's name is laura martinez.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the tree is shedding leaves, and the tree is not shedding leaves, which shows that the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the tree is shedding leaves | The tree is not shedding leaves | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The tree is shedding leaves | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The tree is not shedding leaves | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the tree is shedding leaves, and the tree is not shedding leaves, which shows that the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, since if the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the car is a sedan and the car is not a sedan. | If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the car is a sedan | The car is not a sedan | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | modus tollen | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | The car is a sedan | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | The car is not a sedan | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, since if the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the car is a sedan and the car is not a sedan.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, which implies that a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | modus ponen | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, which implies that a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, therefore the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | modus ponen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | 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 a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, therefore the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, therefore no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery. | If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the book is written by a famous author | The book is not written by a famous author | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | modus tollen | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | The book is written by a famous author | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, therefore 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|>
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, since if john davis had recently purchased a firearm then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars and john davis had recently purchased a firearm. | If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | John davis had recently purchased a firearm | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | modus ponen | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | 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: ```The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, since if john davis had recently purchased a firearm then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars and john davis had recently purchased a firearm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with a toy car then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the baby is playing with a toy car, which establishes that the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees. | If the baby is playing with a toy car then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The baby is playing with a toy car | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | modus ponen | The baby is playing with a toy car | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The baby is not playing with a toy car | 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: ```If the baby is playing with a toy car then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the baby is playing with a toy car, which establishes that the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then laura's mail was tampered with, and laura's mail was not tampered with, which shows that a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene. | If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then laura's mail was tampered with | Laura's mail was not tampered with | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | modus tollen | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | Laura's mail was tampered with | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | Laura's mail was not tampered with | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then laura's mail was tampered with, and laura's mail was not tampered with, which shows that a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a romance novel then john davis had a secret storage unit, and the book is a romance novel, hence john davis had a secret storage unit. | If the book is a romance novel then john davis had a secret storage unit | The book is a romance novel | John Davis had a secret storage unit | modus ponen | The book is a romance novel | John Davis had a secret storage unit | The book is not a romance novel | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a romance novel then john davis had a secret storage unit, and the book is a romance novel, hence john davis had a secret storage unit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, so the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years. | If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | 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 | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | 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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, so the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is purring contentedly on my lap, as if the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary. | If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | modus ponen | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is purring contentedly on my lap, as if the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with toys then dogs are not fish, and the baby is playing with toys, which implies that dogs are not fish. | If the baby is playing with toys then dogs are not fish | The baby is playing with toys | Dogs are not fish | modus ponen | The baby is playing with toys | Dogs are not fish | The baby is not playing with toys | 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 baby is playing with toys then dogs are not fish, and the baby is playing with toys, which implies that dogs are not fish.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a family film then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and the movie is a family film, so forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing. | If the movie is a family film then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The movie is a family film | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | modus ponen | The movie is a family film | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The movie is not a family film | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a family film then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and the movie is a family film, so forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, which establishes that no bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus tollen | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching 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 bloody footprint was found in the living room then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, which establishes that no bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, hence sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily. | If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | modus tollen | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | 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 sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, hence sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the tree is tall, and the tree is not tall, hence the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard. | If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the tree is tall | The tree is not tall | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | modus tollen | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The tree is tall | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | The tree is not tall | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the tree is tall, and the tree is not tall, hence the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement 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, which establishes that detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement. | If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the 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 | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | modus tollen | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | 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 detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement 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, which establishes that detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If paris is in france then the weather is hot and humid, and paris is in france, which implies that the weather is hot and humid. | If paris is in france then the weather is hot and humid | Paris is in france | The weather is hot and humid | modus ponen | Paris is in France | The weather is hot and humid | Paris is not in France | The weather is not hot and humid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If paris is in france then the weather is hot and humid, and paris is in france, which implies that the weather is hot and humid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the baby is teething, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, hence the baby is teething. | If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the baby is teething | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | The baby is teething | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | The baby is teething | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | The baby is not teething | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the baby is teething, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, hence the baby is teething.```<|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 alarm system was disabled before the incident then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, so a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake. | If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | modus ponen | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | 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 alarm system was disabled before the incident then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, so a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.```<|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 the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased, thus the baby is not crawling. | If the baby is crawling then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | The baby is not crawling | modus tollen | The baby is crawling | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The baby is not crawling | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased, thus 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|>
|
If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, so witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist. | If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist 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 | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | modus tollen | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | 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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, so witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, therefore the suspect had no history of mental health issues. | If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the book is written by a famous author | The book is not written by a famous author | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | The book is written by a famous author | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, therefore the suspect had no history of mental health issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The weather is hot and humid, as if a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then the weather is hot and humid and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway. | If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then the weather is hot and humid | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | The weather is hot and humid | modus ponen | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | The weather is hot and humid | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | The weather is not hot and humid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The weather is hot and humid, as if a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then the weather is hot and humid and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a bestseller then the car is parked in the garage, and the book is a bestseller, which shows that the car is parked in the garage. | If the book is a bestseller then the car is parked in the garage | The book is a bestseller | The car is parked in the garage | modus ponen | The book is a bestseller | The car is parked in the garage | The book is not a bestseller | The car is not parked in the garage | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a bestseller then the car is parked in the garage, and the book is a bestseller, which shows that the car is parked in the garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, thus no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | modus tollen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, thus no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, so the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact. | If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | modus tollen | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during 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 the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, so the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the phone is ringing then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and the phone is ringing, therefore a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow. | If the phone is ringing then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | The phone is ringing | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | modus ponen | The phone is ringing | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | The phone is not ringing | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the phone is ringing then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and the phone is ringing, therefore a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then the cat is black, and the cat is not black, 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 the cat is black | The cat is not black | 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 | The cat is black | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | The cat is not black | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then the cat is black, and the cat is not black, 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|>
|
If the weather is cold and rainy then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and the weather is cold and rainy, which establishes that a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake. | If the weather is cold and rainy then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The weather is cold and rainy | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | modus ponen | The weather is cold and rainy | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The weather is not cold and rainy | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and rainy then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and the weather is cold and rainy, which establishes that a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, thus john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs. | If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | modus tollen | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, thus john davis did not have 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 bruises on his arms then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, and john davis had bruises on his arms, which shows that the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. | If john davis had bruises on his arms then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | John davis had bruises on his arms | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | modus ponen | John Davis had bruises on his arms | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had bruises on his arms then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, and john davis had bruises on his arms, which shows that the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, because if the victim's name is sarah mitchell then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby and the victim's name is sarah mitchell. | If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The victim's name is sarah mitchell | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | modus ponen | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, because if the victim's name is sarah mitchell then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby and the victim's name is sarah mitchell.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a secret storage unit then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted, which establishes that john davis did not have a secret storage unit. | If john davis had a secret storage unit then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | modus tollen | John Davis had a secret storage unit | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a secret storage unit then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted, which establishes that john davis did not have a secret storage unit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, so it can be concluded that a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction. | If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | modus tollen | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, so it can be concluded that a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, so laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats. | If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | modus tollen | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | 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: ```If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, so laura's family did not report 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 a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then the baby is teething, and the baby is not teething, which establishes that no broken window was found in laura's bedroom. | If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then the baby is teething | The baby is not teething | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | modus tollen | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | The baby is teething | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | The baby is not teething | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then the baby is teething, and the baby is not teething, which establishes that no broken window was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the computer is on then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, which implies that the computer is not on. | If the computer is on then john davis had a history of stalking laura | John davis did not have a history of stalking laura | The computer is not on | modus tollen | The computer is on | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | The computer is not on | 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 computer is on then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, which implies that the computer is not on.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is not shining, since if the sun is shining then the book is a romance novel and the book is not a romance novel. | If the sun is shining then the book is a romance novel | The book is not a romance novel | The sun is not shining | modus tollen | The sun is shining | The book is a romance novel | The sun is not shining | The book is not a romance novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not shining, since if the sun is shining then the book is a romance novel and the book is not a romance novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, and the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns, thus a broken chair was not found in the kitchen. | If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | modus tollen | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, and the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns, thus a broken chair was not found in the kitchen.```<|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 crying in the stroller then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and the baby is crying in the stroller, which implies that a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster. | If the baby is crying in the stroller then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The baby is crying in the stroller | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | modus ponen | The baby is crying in the stroller | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The baby is not crying in the stroller | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying in the stroller then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and the baby is crying in the stroller, which implies that a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap 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, thus the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap. | If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap 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 | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | modus tollen | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | 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 the cat is purring contentedly on my lap 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, thus the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, therefore a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office. | If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | John davis had a history of violating restraining orders | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | 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 john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, therefore a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The weather is not mild and pleasant, because if the weather is mild and pleasant 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 the weather is mild and pleasant 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 | The weather is not mild and pleasant | modus tollen | The weather is mild and pleasant | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | The weather is not mild and pleasant | 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: ```The weather is not mild and pleasant, because if the weather is mild and pleasant 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 laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace, so laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal. | If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | modus tollen | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace, so laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the squirrel then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, thus the dog is not barking at the squirrel. | If the dog is barking at the squirrel then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the squirrel | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the squirrel then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, thus the dog is not barking at the squirrel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, as if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive. | If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus ponen | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, as if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, and the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns, thus a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby. | If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | modus tollen | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | 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 caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, and the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns, thus a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, since if laura had installed a home security system then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents and laura had installed a home security system. | If laura had installed a home security system then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | Laura had installed a home security system | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | modus ponen | Laura had installed a home security system | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | Laura had not installed a home security system | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, since if laura had installed a home security system then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents and laura had installed a home security system.```<|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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and john davis had bruises on his arms, which implies that richard anderson had a history of financial troubles. | If john davis had bruises on his arms then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles | John davis had bruises on his arms | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | modus ponen | John Davis had bruises on his arms | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had bruises on his arms then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and john davis had bruises on his arms, which implies that richard anderson had a history of financial troubles.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mail truck then the weather is hot and humid, and the dog is barking at the mail truck, therefore the weather is hot and humid. | If the dog is barking at the mail truck then the weather is hot and humid | The dog is barking at the mail truck | The weather is hot and humid | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the mail truck | The weather is hot and humid | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | The weather is not hot and humid | 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 mail truck then the weather is hot and humid, and the dog is barking at the mail truck, therefore the weather is hot and humid.```<|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 arms and neck then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, which implies that a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night. | If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | John davis had scratches on his arms and neck | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | modus ponen | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, which implies that a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, because if sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death. | If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | modus ponen | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | 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: ```A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, because if sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair, so it can be concluded that laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal. | If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | modus tollen | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | 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 laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair, so it can be concluded that laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.```<|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 arson occurred on elm street then the pizza is hot, and the arson occurred on elm street, hence the pizza is hot. | If the arson occurred on elm street then the pizza is hot | The arson occurred on elm street | The pizza is hot | modus ponen | The arson occurred on Elm Street | The pizza is hot | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | The pizza is not hot | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the arson occurred on elm street then the pizza is hot, and the arson occurred on elm street, hence the pizza is hot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, since if a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence. | If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus ponen | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | 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: ```The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, since if a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, so the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary. | If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | modus ponen | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, so the victim's will had been recently 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|>
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, which shows that detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park. | If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | modus ponen | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, which shows that detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public 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 a shattered vase was found in the hallway then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, hence a shattered vase was not found in the hallway. | If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | Detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | modus tollen | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, hence a shattered vase was not found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then john davis had bruises on his arms, and john davis did not have bruises on his arms, which shows that detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects. | If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then john davis had bruises on his arms | John davis did not have bruises on his arms | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | modus tollen | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | John Davis had bruises on his arms | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then john davis had bruises on his arms, and john davis did not have bruises on his arms, which shows that detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, therefore no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, therefore no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, hence the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information. | If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | modus tollen | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, hence the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then paris is in france, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, therefore paris is in france. | If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then paris is in france | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | Paris is in France | modus ponen | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | Paris is in France | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | Paris is not in France | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then paris is in france, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, therefore paris is in france.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, as if the book is a biography then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity and the book is a biography. | If the book is a biography then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | The book is a biography | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | modus ponen | The book is a biography | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | The book is not a biography | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | 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 recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, as if the book is a biography then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity and the book is a biography.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, so a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene. | If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | modus tollen | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, so a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, so it can be concluded that sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily. | If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | modus ponen | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, so it can be concluded that sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, which implies that a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, which implies that a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then water is h2o, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, so water is h2o. | If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then water is h2o | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | Water is H2O | modus ponen | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | Water is H2O | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | 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 laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then water is h2o, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, so 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 a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, so laura had recently changed the locks on her doors. | If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | modus ponen | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, so laura had recently changed the locks on her 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 weather is mild and pleasant then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact, which establishes that the weather is not mild and pleasant. | If the weather is mild and pleasant then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | The weather is not mild and pleasant | modus tollen | The weather is mild and pleasant | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | The weather is not mild and pleasant | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is mild and pleasant then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact, which establishes that the weather is not mild and pleasant.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not crying in the car, since if the baby is crying in the car then the movie is a musical film and the movie is not a musical film. | If the baby is crying in the car then the movie is a musical film | The movie is not a musical film | The baby is not crying in the car | modus tollen | The baby is crying in the car | The movie is a musical film | The baby is not crying in the car | 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: ```The baby is not crying in the car, since if the baby is crying in the car then the movie is a musical film and the movie is not a musical film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is nice then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and the weather is nice, which establishes that laura's dog was found locked in a closet. | If the weather is nice then laura's dog was found locked in a closet | The weather is nice | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | modus ponen | The weather is nice | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | The weather is not nice | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is nice then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and the weather is nice, which establishes that laura's dog was found locked in a closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, which implies that john davis had a history of violating restraining orders. | If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | modus ponen | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | 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: ```If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, which implies that john davis had 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 car is parked in the garage then the computer is on, and the computer is not on, which establishes that the car is not parked in the garage. | If the car is parked in the garage then the computer is on | The computer is not on | The car is not parked in the garage | modus tollen | The car is parked in the garage | The computer is on | The car is not parked in the garage | The computer is not on | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is parked in the garage then the computer is on, and the computer is not on, which establishes that the car is not parked in the garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a drama then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and the movie is a drama, so a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster. | If the movie is a drama then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The movie is a drama | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | modus ponen | The movie is a drama | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The movie is not a drama | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a drama then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and the movie is a drama, so a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and no witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, thus laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker. | If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | modus tollen | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and no witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, thus laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, since if a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft. | If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | modus tollen | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | 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: ```No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, since if a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, so 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 emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | 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 | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up 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 will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, so 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|>
|
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone. | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | modus ponen | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | 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 officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, since if the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats. | If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | modus tollen | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | 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: ```The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, since if the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats and laura's family did not report 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 the sun is shining brightly overhead then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and the sun is shining brightly overhead, which establishes that forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The sun is shining brightly overhead | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | modus ponen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly overhead then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and the sun is shining brightly overhead, which establishes that forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that john davis had not recently purchased a firearm. | If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | modus tollen | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that john davis had not recently purchased a firearm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, and officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, so it can be concluded that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment. | If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, and officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, so it can be concluded that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, so a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone. | If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | modus ponen | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | 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 a broken chair was found in the kitchen then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, so a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, so john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest. | If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | modus tollen | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, so 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|>
|
If it is raining today then the book is on the nightstand, and the book is not on the nightstand, so it can be concluded that it is not raining today. | If it is raining today then the book is on the nightstand | The book is not on the nightstand | It is not raining today | modus tollen | It is raining today | The book is on the nightstand | It is not raining today | The book is not on the nightstand | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If it is raining today then the book is on the nightstand, and the book is not on the nightstand, so it can be concluded that 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 john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, hence a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair. | If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | modus ponen | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | 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 john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, 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 the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, which implies that the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it. | If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | modus tollen | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, which implies that the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, and no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, which establishes that laura's dog was not found locked in a closet. | If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | modus tollen | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, and no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, which establishes that 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 car is moving then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and the car is moving, so it can be concluded that the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard. | If the car is moving then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The car is moving | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | modus ponen | The car is moving | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The car is not moving | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is moving then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and the car is moving, so it can be concluded that the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then cats are mammals, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, so it can be concluded that cats are mammals. | If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then cats are mammals | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Cats are mammals | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Cats are mammals | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Cats are not mammals | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then cats are mammals, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, so it can be concluded that cats are mammals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, since if witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist. | If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | modus ponen | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | 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: ```Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, since if witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.