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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Laura's mail was not tampered with, as if laura's mail was tampered with then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house and no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.
|
If laura's mail was tampered with then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house
|
No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's mail was tampered with
|
A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with
|
No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside 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: ```Laura's mail was not tampered with, as if laura's mail was tampered with then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house and no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside 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|>
|
The book is not a bestseller, since if the book is a bestseller then the cat is sleeping on the couch and the cat is not sleeping on the couch.
|
If the book is a bestseller then the cat is sleeping on the couch
|
The cat is not sleeping on the couch
|
The book is not a bestseller
|
modus tollen
|
The book is a bestseller
|
The cat is sleeping on the couch
|
The book is not a bestseller
|
The cat is not sleeping on the couch
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not a bestseller, since if the book is a bestseller then the cat is sleeping on the couch and the cat is not sleeping on the couch.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, so it can be concluded that the baby is not crawling towards the toy.
|
If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The baby is not crawling towards the toy
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is crawling towards the toy
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The baby is not crawling towards the toy
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, so it can be concluded that the baby is not crawling towards the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is happy then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and the dog is happy, which implies that a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene.
|
If the dog is happy then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
The dog is happy
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is happy
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
The dog is not happy
|
A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is happy then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and the dog is happy, which implies that a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the car then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and the baby is crying in the car, so it can be concluded that detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse.
|
If the baby is crying in the car then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
|
The baby is crying in the car
|
Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is crying in the car
|
Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse
|
The baby is not crying in the car
|
Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying in the car then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and the baby is crying in the car, so it can be concluded that detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the pizza is hot 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, which shows that the pizza is not hot.
|
If the pizza is hot 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
|
The pizza is not hot
|
modus tollen
|
The pizza is hot
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
The pizza is not hot
|
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 the pizza is hot 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, which shows that the pizza is not hot.```<|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 claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, which establishes that john davis had scratches on his arms and neck.
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck
|
modus ponen
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder
|
John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck
| 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 claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, which establishes that john davis had scratches on his arms and neck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, thus the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster.
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings
|
The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
modus ponen
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings
|
The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
|
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, thus the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, hence laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door.
|
If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
modus ponen
|
The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, hence laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of anger management issues then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, so it can be concluded that a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox.
|
If john davis had a history of anger management issues then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox
|
John davis had a history of anger management issues
|
A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a history of anger management issues
|
A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox
|
John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues
|
A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of anger management issues then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, so it can be concluded that a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, so it can be concluded that the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions.
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
modus ponen
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
The murder weapon was not a baseball bat
|
The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, so it can be concluded that the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions.```<|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 recently changed their locks due to security concerns, as if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns 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 the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
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: ```The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, as if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns 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 john davis had recently purchased a firearm then the tree is tall, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, which implies that the tree is tall.
|
If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then the tree is tall
|
John davis had recently purchased a firearm
|
The tree is tall
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had recently purchased a firearm
|
The tree is tall
|
John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm
|
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 john davis had recently purchased a firearm then the tree is tall, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, which implies that the tree is tall.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, which establishes that a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.
|
If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
modus ponen
|
A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office
|
A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
|
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 a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, which establishes that 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|>
|
A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, because if a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then laura had installed a home security system and laura had not installed a home security system.
|
If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then laura had installed a home security system
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement
|
modus tollen
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, because if a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then laura had installed a home security system and laura had not 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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the dog is barking at the mailman, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, so it can be concluded that the dog is barking at the mailman.
|
If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the dog is barking at the mailman
|
Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
modus ponen
|
Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the dog is barking at the mailman, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, so it can be concluded that the dog is barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, so the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment.
|
If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment
|
The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment
|
The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead
|
The victim's car keys were not missing from their 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 suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, so the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, since if laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.
|
If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john
|
A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John
|
A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John
|
A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, since if laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, as if the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home and the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery.
|
If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home
|
The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home
|
modus ponen
|
The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home
|
The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, as if the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home and the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the suspect's name is john davis, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, which establishes that the suspect's name is john davis.
|
If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the suspect's name is john davis
|
Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
|
The suspect's name is John Davis
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop
|
The suspect's name is John Davis
|
Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop
|
The suspect's name is not John Davis
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the suspect's name is john davis, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, which establishes that the suspect's name is john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, since if a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.
|
If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
modus ponen
|
A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, since if a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, therefore a strand of hair was found at the crime scene.
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
A strand of hair was found at the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
A strand of hair was found at the crime scene
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van
|
A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, therefore a strand of hair was found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the sun is shining, and the sun is not shining, thus a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.
|
If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the sun is shining
|
The sun is not shining
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
|
modus tollen
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair
|
The sun is shining
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair
|
The sun is not shining
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the sun is shining, and the sun is not shining, thus a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then john davis had bruises on his arms, and john davis did not have bruises on his arms, which shows that forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.
|
If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then john davis had bruises on his arms
|
John davis did not have bruises on his arms
|
Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
modus tollen
|
Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
John Davis had bruises on his arms
|
Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing
|
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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then john davis had bruises on his arms, and john davis did not have bruises on his arms, which shows that forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a gas leak was detected in the basement then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, and the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation, so it can be concluded that a gas leak was not detected in the basement.
|
If a gas leak was detected in the basement then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation
|
The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation
|
A gas leak was not detected in the basement
|
modus tollen
|
A gas leak was detected in the basement
|
The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation
|
A gas leak was not detected in the basement
|
The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a gas leak was detected in the basement then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, and the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation, so it can be concluded that a gas leak was not detected in the basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky 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, thus the sun is not setting slowly in the sky.
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky 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 sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
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 sun is setting slowly in the sky 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, thus the sun is not setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, which implies that john davis had scratches on his arms and neck.
|
If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck
|
Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
|
John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck
|
Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, which implies that john davis had scratches on his arms and neck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, because if laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker.
|
If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
|
A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, because if laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, since if john davis had bruises on his arms then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted and john davis had bruises on his arms.
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted
|
John davis had bruises on his arms
|
The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had bruises on his arms
|
The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted
|
John Davis did not have bruises on his arms
|
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: ```The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, since if john davis had bruises on his arms then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted and john davis had bruises on his arms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene 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, hence a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene.
|
If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene 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
|
A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft
|
A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene 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, hence 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 richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, so richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account.
|
If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it
|
The murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it
|
Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
|
modus tollen
|
Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account
|
The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it
|
Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
|
The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, so richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, which establishes that laura's social media accounts were not hacked.
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
|
Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
|
Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's social media accounts were hacked then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, which establishes that laura's social media accounts were not hacked.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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, which establishes that no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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
|
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
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
|
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 a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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, which establishes that no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the cat is sleeping in the sun, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, which shows that the cat is sleeping in the sun.
|
If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the cat is sleeping in the sun
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
|
The cat is sleeping in the sun
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft
|
The cat is sleeping in the sun
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
|
The cat is not sleeping in the sun
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the cat is sleeping in the sun, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, which shows that the cat is sleeping in the sun.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then paris is in france, and paris is not in france, so laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then paris is in france
|
Paris is not in france
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
Paris is in France
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
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 laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then paris is in france, and paris is not in france, so laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly overhead then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and the sun is shining brightly overhead, which implies that laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone.
|
If the sun is shining brightly overhead then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
The sun is shining brightly overhead
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
modus ponen
|
The sun is shining brightly overhead
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
The sun is not shining brightly overhead
|
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 the sun is shining brightly overhead then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and the sun is shining brightly overhead, which implies that laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, since if a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument.
|
If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument
|
A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
|
No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
modus tollen
|
A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument
|
No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home
|
A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, since if a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and the book is written by a famous author, which implies that a bloody footprint was found in the living room.
|
If the book is written by a famous author then a bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
modus ponen
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and the book is written by a famous author, which implies that a 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|>
|
The eiffel tower is not in paris, since if the eiffel tower is in paris then the baby is playing with toys and the baby is not playing with toys.
|
If the eiffel tower is in paris then the baby is playing with toys
|
The baby is not playing with toys
|
The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
|
modus tollen
|
The Eiffel Tower is in Paris
|
The baby is playing with toys
|
The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
|
The baby is not playing with toys
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The eiffel tower is not in paris, since if the eiffel tower is in paris then the baby is playing with toys and the baby is not playing with toys.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a history of mental health issues, as if john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the suspect had a history of mental health issues and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms.
|
If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
John davis had a cache of illegal firearms
|
The suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms
|
The suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms
|
The suspect had no history of mental health issues
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a history of mental health issues, as if john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the suspect had a history of mental health issues and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting then laura's social media accounts were hacked, and laura's social media accounts were not hacked, thus the sun is not setting.
|
If the sun is setting then laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
|
The sun is not setting
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is setting
|
Laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
The sun is not setting
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting then laura's social media accounts were hacked, and laura's social media accounts were not hacked, thus the sun is not setting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had installed a home security system then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, and laura had installed a home security system, which establishes that a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.
|
If laura had installed a home security system then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
|
modus ponen
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
|
No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had installed a home security system then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, and laura had installed a home security system, which establishes that a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine, since if a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then laura's car was found with a slashed tire and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire.
|
If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire
|
A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine
|
modus tollen
|
A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine
|
Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine, since if a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then laura's car was found with a slashed tire and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a sedan then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which implies that the car is not a sedan.
|
If the car is a sedan then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
The car is not a sedan
|
modus tollen
|
The car is a sedan
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
The car is not a sedan
|
A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a sedan then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which implies that the 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 the book is a mystery novel then the weather is hot and humid, and the book is a mystery novel, hence the weather is hot and humid.
|
If the book is a mystery novel then the weather is hot and humid
|
The book is a mystery novel
|
The weather is hot and humid
|
modus ponen
|
The book is a mystery novel
|
The weather is hot and humid
|
The book is not a mystery novel
|
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 book is a mystery novel then the weather is hot and humid, and the book is a mystery novel, hence 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 witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the dog is barking, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, thus the dog is barking.
|
If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the dog is barking
|
A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
The dog is barking
|
modus ponen
|
A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
The dog is barking
|
A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
The dog is not barking
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the dog is barking, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, thus the dog is barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething on a toy then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and the baby is teething on a toy, therefore a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.
|
If the baby is teething on a toy then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
The baby is teething on a toy
|
A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is teething on a toy
|
A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
The baby is not teething on a toy
|
A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething on a toy then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and the baby is teething on a toy, therefore a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying loudly then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, so the baby is not crying loudly.
|
If the baby is crying loudly then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
|
The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
|
The baby is not crying loudly
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is crying loudly
|
The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
|
The baby is not crying loudly
|
The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying loudly then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, so the baby is not crying loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings, which shows that no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings
|
No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings
|
No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings, which shows that no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, because if a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene and no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.
|
If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
modus tollen
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, because if a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene and no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a sports film then the car is a hybrid, and the movie is a sports film, which implies that the car is a hybrid.
|
If the movie is a sports film then the car is a hybrid
|
The movie is a sports film
|
The car is a hybrid
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a sports film
|
The car is a hybrid
|
The movie is not a sports film
|
The car is not a hybrid
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a sports film then the car is a hybrid, and the movie is a sports film, which implies that the car is a hybrid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery 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 the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.
|
If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery 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
|
The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
|
modus tollen
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
|
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 the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery 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 the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis was not found with a bag of cash, because if john davis was found with a bag of cash then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently and laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently.
|
If john davis was found with a bag of cash then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently
|
Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently
|
John Davis was not found with a bag of cash
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis was found with a bag of cash
|
Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently
|
John Davis was not found with a bag of cash
|
Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently
| 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 not found with a bag of cash, because if john davis was found with a bag of cash then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently and laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is drinking from a bottle then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the baby is drinking from a bottle, therefore the stolen van was registered in a fake name.
|
If the baby is drinking from a bottle then the stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
The baby is drinking from a bottle
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is drinking from a bottle
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
The baby is not drinking from a bottle
|
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 baby is drinking from a bottle then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the baby is drinking from a bottle, therefore 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|>
|
If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, which shows that laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer.
|
If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer
|
A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
| 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 personal files were deleted from her computer then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, which shows that laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cold and snowy then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, which implies that the weather is not cold and snowy.
|
If the weather is cold and snowy then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing
|
Sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing
|
The weather is not cold and snowy
|
modus tollen
|
The weather is cold and snowy
|
Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing
|
The weather is not cold and snowy
|
Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and snowy then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, which implies that the weather is not cold and snowy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then the tree is shedding leaves, and the tree is not shedding leaves, which establishes that sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder.
|
If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then the tree is shedding leaves
|
The tree is not shedding leaves
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
|
modus tollen
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
The tree is shedding leaves
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
|
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 sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then the tree is shedding leaves, and the tree is not shedding leaves, which establishes that sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the dog is barking loudly, and the dog is not barking loudly, which implies that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the dog is barking loudly
|
The dog is not barking loudly
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
modus tollen
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
The dog is barking loudly
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
The dog is not barking loudly
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the dog is barking loudly, and the dog is not barking loudly, which implies that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the car is parked in the garage, and the car is not parked in the garage, so no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the car is parked in the garage
|
The car is not parked in the garage
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
modus tollen
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
The car is parked in the garage
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
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 a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the car is parked in the garage, and the car is not parked in the garage, so no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, which implies that no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.
|
If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
modus tollen
|
A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, which implies that no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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, which shows that a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings.
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
|
modus tollen
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings
|
The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
|
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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings 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, which shows that a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the cat is sleeping soundly, and the cat is not sleeping soundly, therefore detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects.
|
If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the cat is sleeping soundly
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly
|
Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
modus tollen
|
Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
The cat is sleeping soundly
|
Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly
| 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 the cat is sleeping soundly, and the cat is not sleeping soundly, therefore 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, so it can be concluded that a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.
|
If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
modus ponen
|
Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, so it can be concluded that a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, as if a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information.
|
If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information
|
A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
|
modus tollen
|
A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
|
The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
|
A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
|
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: ```A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, as if a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information and 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 laura had a life insurance policy then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, so laura did not have a life insurance policy.
|
If laura had a life insurance policy then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement
|
Laura did not have a life insurance policy
|
modus tollen
|
Laura had a life insurance policy
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
Laura did not have a life insurance policy
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a life insurance policy then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, so laura did not have a life insurance policy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then paris is in france, and paris is not in france, so no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then paris is in france
|
Paris is not in france
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
modus tollen
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
Paris is in France
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then paris is in france, and paris is not in france, so no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and the baby is not crawling towards the cat, hence no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.
|
If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the baby is crawling towards the cat
|
The baby is not crawling towards the cat
|
No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
|
modus tollen
|
A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
|
The baby is crawling towards the cat
|
No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
|
The baby is not crawling towards the cat
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and the baby is not crawling towards the cat, hence no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, hence laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
|
John davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs
|
Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's phone records show calls to 911
|
John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
|
Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
|
John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, hence laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's name is not john davis, since if the suspect's name is john davis then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
The suspect's name is not John Davis
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's name is John Davis
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
The suspect's name is not John Davis
|
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 name is not john davis, since if the suspect's name is john davis then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the cat is purring, and the cat is not purring, therefore the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the cat is purring
|
The cat is not purring
|
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 cat is purring
|
The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
The cat is not purring
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the cat is purring, and the cat is not purring, therefore the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the tree is shedding leaves, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, which establishes that the tree is shedding leaves.
|
If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the tree is shedding leaves
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
The tree is shedding leaves
|
modus ponen
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
The tree is shedding leaves
|
The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
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 stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the tree is shedding leaves, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, which establishes that the tree is shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, because if a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then paris is in france and paris is not in france.
|
If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then paris is in france
|
Paris is not in france
|
No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
|
modus tollen
|
A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
|
Paris is in France
|
No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
|
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: ```No bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, because if a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then paris is in france and paris is not in france.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, since if a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man and no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.
|
If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
No homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
|
No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, since if a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man and no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, which shows that the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement.
|
If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
|
A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
|
modus ponen
|
A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
|
No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, which shows that the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement.```<|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 tree is tall, and the dog is barking at the mail truck, hence the tree is tall.
|
If the dog is barking at the mail truck then the tree is tall
|
The dog is barking at the mail truck
|
The tree is tall
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking at the mail truck
|
The tree is tall
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck
|
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 dog is barking at the mail truck then the tree is tall, and the dog is barking at the mail truck, hence the tree is tall.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and the sun is setting, hence the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact.
|
If the sun is setting then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
The sun is setting
|
The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
modus ponen
|
The sun is setting
|
The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact
|
The sun is not setting
|
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 sun is setting then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and the sun is setting, hence the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but 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|>
|
The weather is cloudy and rainy, since if a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then the weather is cloudy and rainy and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.
|
If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then the weather is cloudy and rainy
|
A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
|
The weather is cloudy and rainy
|
modus ponen
|
A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
The weather is cloudy and rainy
|
No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
The weather is not cloudy and rainy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The weather is cloudy and rainy, since if a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then the weather is cloudy and rainy and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the movie is a horror film, and the movie is not a horror film, so it can be concluded that emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.
|
If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the movie is a horror film
|
The movie is not a horror film
|
Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
modus tollen
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
The movie is a horror film
|
Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle
|
The movie is not a horror film
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the movie is a horror film, and the movie is not a horror film, so it can be concluded that emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.```<|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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, which establishes that the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery.
|
If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information
|
The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, which establishes that the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, which establishes that a broken window was found in laura's bedroom.
|
If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom
|
A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
modus ponen
|
A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park
|
No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, which establishes that a broken window was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was found with a bag of cash then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, and a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, thus john davis was not found with a bag of cash.
|
If john davis was found with a bag of cash then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment
|
A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment
|
John Davis was not found with a bag of cash
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis was found with a bag of cash
|
A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment
|
John Davis was not found with a bag of cash
|
A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was found with a bag of cash then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, and a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, thus john davis was not found with a bag of cash.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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, therefore the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.
|
If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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
|
The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect
|
The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
|
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 the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster 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, therefore the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking at the stranger, as if detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the dog is barking at the stranger and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.
|
If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the dog is barking at the stranger
|
Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
The dog is barking at the stranger
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
The dog is barking at the stranger
|
Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
The dog is not barking at the stranger
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking at the stranger, as if detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the dog is barking at the stranger and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot, since if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a neighbor heard a gunshot and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a neighbor heard a gunshot
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor heard a gunshot, since if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a neighbor heard a gunshot and the suspect's fingerprints were found 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|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, which establishes that the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.
|
If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
modus ponen
|
Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
|
Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, which establishes that the suspect's fingerprints were found 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|>
|
If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, hence a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.
|
If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John
|
A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, hence a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.```<|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 mailman then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the dog is barking at the mailman, which shows that the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster.
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman
|
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 the dog is barking at the mailman then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the dog is barking at the mailman, which shows that the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, as if the sun is shining brightly then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store and the sun is shining brightly.
|
If the sun is shining brightly then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
The sun is shining brightly
|
A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
modus ponen
|
The sun is shining brightly
|
A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
The sun is not shining brightly
|
A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, as if the sun is shining brightly then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store and the sun is shining brightly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, so john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone.
|
If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
|
John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone
|
The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, so john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and a broken chair was not found in the kitchen, therefore no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then a broken chair was found in the kitchen
|
A broken chair was not found in the kitchen
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
modus tollen
|
A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
A broken chair was found in the kitchen
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
A broken chair was not found in the kitchen
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and a broken chair was not found in the kitchen, therefore no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then the car is a sedan, and the car is not a sedan, so no witness heard screams coming from laura's house.
|
If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then the car is a sedan
|
The car is not a sedan
|
No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
modus tollen
|
A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
The car is a sedan
|
No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
The car is not a sedan
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then the car is a sedan, and the car is not a sedan, so no witness heard screams coming from laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, hence the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident.
|
If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
|
Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
|
Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
|
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 laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, hence the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident.```<|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 the suspect entering the building, since if the car is parked on the street then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building and the car is parked on the street.
|
If the car is parked on the street then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The car is parked on the street
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
modus ponen
|
The car is parked on the street
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The car is not parked on the street
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A security camera captured the suspect entering the building, since if the car is parked on the street then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building and the car is parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If water is h2o then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and water is h2o, thus a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.
|
If water is h2o then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
Water is h2o
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
modus ponen
|
Water is H2O
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
|
Water is not H2O
|
A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If water is h2o then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and water is h2o, thus a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which shows that the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.
|
If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
|
A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone
|
The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
|
modus ponen
|
A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone
|
The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which shows that the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting then the baby is crawling, and the sun is setting, hence the baby is crawling.
|
If the sun is setting then the baby is crawling
|
The sun is setting
|
The baby is crawling
|
modus ponen
|
The sun is setting
|
The baby is crawling
|
The sun is not setting
|
The baby is not crawling
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting then the baby is crawling, and the sun is setting, hence the baby is 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 the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the movie is exciting, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, so the movie is exciting.
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the movie is exciting
|
The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
|
The movie is exciting
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
|
The movie is exciting
|
The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals
|
The movie is not exciting
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the movie is exciting, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, so the movie is exciting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, since if a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the sun is shining brightly overhead and the sun is not shining brightly overhead.
|
If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the sun is shining brightly overhead
|
The sun is not shining brightly overhead
|
A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
modus tollen
|
A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
The sun is shining brightly overhead
|
A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
The sun is not shining brightly overhead
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, since if a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the sun is shining brightly overhead and the sun is not shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping on the couch then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and the cat is sleeping on the couch, which establishes that surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.
|
If the cat is sleeping on the couch then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
The cat is sleeping on the couch
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is sleeping on the couch
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
The cat is not sleeping on the couch
|
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 the cat is sleeping on the couch then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and the cat is sleeping on the couch, which establishes that surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, which implies that richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions.
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
modus ponen
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, which implies that richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.