Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street. stringlengths 74 421 | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street stringlengths 36 192 | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 788 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street stringclasses 788 values | modus ponen stringclasses 2 values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1 stringclasses 394 values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street stringclasses 394 values | True bool 1 class | text stringlengths 453 800 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, and a bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door, so it can be concluded that no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning. | If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door | A bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | modus tollen | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, and a bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door, so it can be concluded that no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.```<|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 near the victim's workplace then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, which shows that the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | modus ponen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | 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 a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, which shows that 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|>
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, as if the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker. | If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | modus ponen | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, as if the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|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 paris is in france, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which shows that paris is in france. | If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then paris is in france | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | Paris is in France | modus ponen | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | Paris is in France | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | 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 cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then paris is in france, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which shows that paris is in france.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, which establishes that a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder. | If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | modus ponen | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, which establishes that a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying loudly then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, which implies that the baby is not crying loudly. | If the baby is crying loudly then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | The baby is not crying loudly | modus tollen | The baby is crying loudly | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The baby is not crying loudly | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying loudly then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, which implies that 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 the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, which implies that the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years. | If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | modus tollen | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, which implies that the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, because if a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen. | If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction | A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | modus ponen | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, because if a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, which establishes that the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m. | If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | modus ponen | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, which establishes that the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is parked on the street then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and the car is parked on the street, so it can be concluded that the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted. | If the car is parked on the street then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The car is parked on the street | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | modus ponen | The car is parked on the street | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The car is not parked on the street | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is parked on the street then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and the car is parked on the street, so it can be concluded that the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, hence emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop. | If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | modus ponen | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, hence emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's house was booby-trapped, because if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then laura's house was booby-trapped and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then laura's house was booby-trapped | A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | Laura's house was booby-trapped | modus ponen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Laura's house was booby-trapped | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's house was booby-trapped, because if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then laura's house was booby-trapped and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, which implies that a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim. | If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | modus ponen | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, which implies that a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, therefore the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information. | If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | modus ponen | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, therefore the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The water is not warm, since if the water is warm then the baby is crying loudly and the baby is not crying loudly. | If the water is warm then the baby is crying loudly | The baby is not crying loudly | The water is not warm | modus tollen | The water is warm | The baby is crying loudly | The water is not warm | The baby is not crying loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The water is not warm, since if the water is warm then the baby is crying loudly and 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 the sun is setting then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, and the sun is setting, therefore detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement. | If the sun is setting then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The sun is setting | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | modus ponen | The sun is setting | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The sun is not setting | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, and the sun is setting, therefore detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then john davis had bruises on his arms, and john davis did not have bruises on his arms, therefore emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder. | If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then john davis had bruises on his arms | John davis did not have bruises on his arms | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | modus tollen | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | John Davis had bruises on his arms | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | 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 emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then john davis had bruises on his arms, and john davis did not have bruises on his arms, therefore emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, hence no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene. | If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | modus tollen | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, hence no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, hence a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder. | If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | modus ponen | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | 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 jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, hence a 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|>
|
The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, as if a neighbor heard a gunshot then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment and a neighbor heard a gunshot. | If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | A neighbor heard a gunshot | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | modus ponen | A neighbor heard a gunshot | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | 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: ```The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, as if a neighbor heard a gunshot then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment and a neighbor heard a gunshot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the bird is singing then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, which implies that the bird is not singing. | If the bird is singing then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home | A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home | The bird is not singing | modus tollen | The bird is singing | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | The bird is not singing | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the bird is singing then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, which implies that the bird is not singing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, so it can be concluded that the cat is not sleeping in the sun. | If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the baby is teething on a toy | The baby is not teething on a toy | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping in the sun | The baby is teething on a toy | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | The baby is not teething on a toy | 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 in the sun then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, so it can be concluded that the cat is not 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|>
|
The cat is purring contentedly, as if laura's wedding ring is missing then the cat is purring contentedly and laura's wedding ring is missing. | If laura's wedding ring is missing then the cat is purring contentedly | Laura's wedding ring is missing | The cat is purring contentedly | modus ponen | Laura's wedding ring is missing | The cat is purring contentedly | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | The cat is not purring contentedly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is purring contentedly, as if laura's wedding ring is missing then the cat is purring contentedly and laura's wedding ring is missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The pizza is not hot, because if the pizza is hot then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail. | If the pizza is hot then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | The pizza is not hot | modus tollen | The pizza is hot | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The pizza is not hot | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The pizza is not hot, because if the pizza is hot then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail.```<|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 in the sky then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the sun is shining brightly in the sky, which establishes that the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data. | If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | modus ponen | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | 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 in the sky then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the sun is shining brightly in the sky, which establishes that the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, because if the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker. | If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | modus ponen | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, because if the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, so it can be concluded that richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, so it can be concluded that richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, because if the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster. | If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | modus tollen | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | 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: ```The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, because if the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a romance novel then the baby is playing with a toy car, and the baby is not playing with a toy car, therefore the book is not a romance novel. | If the book is a romance novel then the baby is playing with a toy car | The baby is not playing with a toy car | The book is not a romance novel | modus tollen | The book is a romance novel | The baby is playing with a toy car | The book is not a romance novel | The baby is not playing with a toy 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 book is a romance novel then the baby is playing with a toy car, and the baby is not playing with a toy car, therefore the book is not a romance novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, which establishes that a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned. | If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | modus ponen | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | 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 detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, which establishes that a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the sun is setting slowly, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, which implies that the sun is setting slowly. | If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the sun is setting slowly | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | The sun is setting slowly | modus ponen | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | The sun is setting slowly | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | The sun is not setting slowly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the sun is setting slowly, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, which implies that the sun is setting slowly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, thus laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker. | If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | modus tollen | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, thus laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then laura's garage door was left open, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, hence laura's garage door was left open. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then laura's garage door was left open | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | Laura's garage door was left open | modus ponen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | Laura's garage door was left open | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | Laura's garage door was not left open | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then laura's garage door was left open, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, hence laura's garage door was left open.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then john davis had a history of financial problems, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, so john davis had a history of financial problems. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then john davis had a history of financial problems | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | John Davis had a history of financial problems | modus ponen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | John Davis had a history of financial problems | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then john davis had a history of financial problems, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, so john davis had a history of financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, thus a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house. | If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, thus a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, because if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary and the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | modus tollen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, because if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary and the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, which establishes that the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus ponen | Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered 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 detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, which establishes that the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, which establishes that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment. | If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | Detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, which establishes that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sally is older than john then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and sally is older than john, so the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest. | If sally is older than john then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Sally is older than john | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | modus ponen | Sally is older than John | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Sally is not older than John | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sally is older than john then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and sally is older than john, so the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, as if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder and emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | modus tollen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, as if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder and emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after 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 laura's mail was tampered with then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, and footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene, hence laura's mail was not tampered with. | If laura's mail was tampered with then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene | Footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene | Laura's mail was not tampered with | modus tollen | Laura's mail was tampered with | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | Laura's mail was not tampered with | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's mail was tampered with then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, and footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene, hence laura's mail was not tampered with.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the movie is a horror film, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, so the movie is a horror film. | If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the movie is a horror film | Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The movie is a horror film | modus ponen | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The movie is a horror film | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | 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 detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the movie is a horror film, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, so the movie is a horror film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, hence the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery. | If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | modus tollen | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, hence the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, which shows that laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident. | If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | modus tollen | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, which shows that laura's alarm system was not disabled before 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|>
|
If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the computer is on, and the cat is sleeping in the sun, which establishes that the computer is on. | If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the computer is on | The cat is sleeping in the sun | The computer is on | modus ponen | The cat is sleeping in the sun | The computer is on | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | The computer is not on | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the computer is on, and the cat is sleeping in the sun, which establishes that the computer is on.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the computer is on, and the computer is not on, so no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet. | If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the computer is on | The computer is not on | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | modus tollen | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The computer is on | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The computer is not on | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the computer is on, and the computer is not on, so no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.```<|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 wedding ring is missing then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, thus laura's wedding ring is not missing. | If laura's wedding ring is missing then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | modus tollen | Laura's wedding ring is missing | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after 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 laura's wedding ring is missing then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, thus laura's wedding ring is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a biography then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, and the book is a biography, so it can be concluded that officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store. | If the book is a biography then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | The book is a biography | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | modus ponen | The book is a biography | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | The book is not a biography | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a biography then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, and the book is a biography, so it can be concluded that officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store.```<|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 on the nightstand, because if the book is on the nightstand then laura's jewelry box was emptied and laura's jewelry box was not emptied. | If the book is on the nightstand then laura's jewelry box was emptied | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | The book is not on the nightstand | modus tollen | The book is on the nightstand | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | The book is not on the nightstand | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not on the nightstand, because if the book is on the nightstand then laura's jewelry box was emptied and laura's jewelry box was not emptied.```<|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 on the nightstand, because if the book is on the nightstand then the cat is purring and the cat is not purring. | If the book is on the nightstand then the cat is purring | The cat is not purring | The book is not on the nightstand | modus tollen | The book is on the nightstand | The cat is purring | The book is not on the nightstand | 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: ```The book is not on the nightstand, because if the book is on the nightstand then the cat is purring and the cat is not purring.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, because if sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment and a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment | A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | modus tollen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | 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: ```Sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, because if sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment and a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, so it can be concluded that the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | modus ponen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, so it can be concluded that the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time 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 john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, so john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues. | If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, so john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, so it can be concluded 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 laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john | 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 | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | 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 laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, so it can be concluded 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 the cat is sleeping soundly then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, so the cat is not sleeping soundly. | If the cat is sleeping soundly then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | No suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | The cat is not sleeping soundly | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping soundly | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | The cat is not sleeping soundly | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping soundly then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, so the cat is not sleeping soundly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, since if the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon. | If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | modus ponen | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, since if the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, so it can be concluded that a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake. | If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | modus ponen | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, so it can be concluded that a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied, as if laura's jewelry box was emptied then the movie is a documentary and the movie is not a documentary. | If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the movie is a documentary | The movie is not a documentary | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | modus tollen | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | The movie is a documentary | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | The movie is not a documentary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's jewelry box was not emptied, as if laura's jewelry box was emptied then the movie is a documentary and the movie is not a documentary.```<|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 memoir then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, which implies that the book is not a memoir. | If the book is a memoir then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | John davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe | The book is not a memoir | modus tollen | The book is a memoir | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | The book is not a memoir | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a memoir then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, which implies that the book is not a memoir.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, because if a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account and richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account. | If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | Richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | 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 | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, because if a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account and 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|>
|
Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, because if fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop. | If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | modus ponen | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, because if fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The computer is not on, since if the computer is on then the cat is purring loudly and the cat is not purring loudly. | If the computer is on then the cat is purring loudly | The cat is not purring loudly | The computer is not on | modus tollen | The computer is on | The cat is purring loudly | The computer is not on | The cat is not purring loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The computer is not on, since if the computer is on then the cat is purring loudly and the cat is not purring loudly.```<|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 not found in emily's home, because if a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then laura's garage door was left open and laura's garage door was not left open. | If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then laura's garage door was left open | Laura's garage door was not left open | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | modus tollen | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | Laura's garage door was left open | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | Laura's garage door was not left open | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, because if a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then laura's garage door was left open and laura's garage door was not left open.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, hence the murder weapon was a baseball bat. | If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the murder weapon was a baseball bat | Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | modus ponen | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, hence the murder weapon was a baseball bat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, because if a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment and no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | No stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | modus tollen | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, because if a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment and no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, as if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then laura had a life insurance policy and laura did not have a life insurance policy. | If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then laura had a life insurance policy | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | Laura had a life insurance policy | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, as if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then laura had a life insurance policy and 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|>
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room, since if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder. | If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then a bloody footprint was found in the living room | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus ponen | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | 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: ```A bloody footprint was found in the living room, since if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, which establishes that a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car. | If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | modus ponen | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | 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 murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, which establishes that 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 a gas leak was detected in the basement then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine, so a gas leak was not detected in the basement. | If a gas leak was detected in the basement then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine | A threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | modus tollen | A gas leak was detected in the basement | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | 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 a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine, so 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 suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, hence the suspect's fingerprints were not 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 laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, hence 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 victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the suspect's name is john davis, and the suspect's name is not john davis, which implies that the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect. | If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the suspect's name is john davis | The suspect's name is not john davis | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The suspect's name is John Davis | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | 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 the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the suspect's name is john davis, and the suspect's name is not john davis, which implies that the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, therefore emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder. | If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | modus tollen | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | 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 emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, therefore emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's name is not laura martinez, since if the victim's name is laura martinez then paris is in france and paris is not in france. | If the victim's name is laura martinez then paris is in france | Paris is not in france | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | modus tollen | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | Paris is in France | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | 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: ```The victim's name is not laura martinez, since if the victim's name is laura martinez 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|>
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, because if the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home and a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home. | If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | modus tollen | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | 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: ```The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, because if the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home and a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis, as if laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder and the suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder. | If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | modus tollen | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis, as if laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder and the suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the stroller then the weather is hot and humid, and the weather is not hot and humid, thus the baby is not crying in the stroller. | If the baby is crying in the stroller then the weather is hot and humid | The weather is not hot and humid | The baby is not crying in the stroller | modus tollen | The baby is crying in the stroller | The weather is hot and humid | The baby is not crying in the stroller | 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 baby is crying in the stroller then the weather is hot and humid, and the weather is not hot and humid, thus the baby is not crying in the stroller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased, hence the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker. | If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | modus tollen | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased, hence the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|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 dog next door, since if the car is moving then the dog is barking at the dog next door and the car is moving. | If the car is moving then the dog is barking at the dog next door | The car is moving | The dog is barking at the dog next door | modus ponen | The car is moving | The dog is barking at the dog next door | The car is not moving | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | 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 dog next door, since if the car is moving then the dog is barking at the dog next door and the car is moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, thus the weather is cloudy and rainy. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then the weather is cloudy and rainy | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The weather is cloudy and rainy | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The weather is cloudy and rainy | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, thus the weather is cloudy and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sally is older than john then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, hence sally is not older than john. | If sally is older than john then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Sally is not older than John | modus tollen | Sally is older than John | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Sally is not older than John | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sally is older than john then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, hence sally is not older than john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, as if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the cat is grooming itself and the cat is not grooming itself. | If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the cat is grooming itself | The cat is not grooming itself | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The cat is grooming itself | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | The cat is not grooming itself | 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 not recently changed the locks on their doors, as if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the cat is grooming itself and the cat is not grooming itself.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, which shows that richard anderson had a history of financial troubles. | If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | modus ponen | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, which shows that richard anderson had a history of financial troubles.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, so a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, so a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, hence a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | modus ponen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, hence a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, so emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery. | If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | modus ponen | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, so emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of 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 claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, which implies that the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | modus ponen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, which implies that the victim's missing laptop contained 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 emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, therefore surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house. | If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | modus ponen | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, therefore surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness heard screams coming from laura's house, since if a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape. | If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | modus tollen | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No witness heard screams coming from laura's house, since if a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a drama then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which implies that the movie is not a drama. | If the movie is a drama then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | The movie is not a drama | modus tollen | The movie is a drama | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | The movie is not a drama | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a drama then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which implies that the movie is not a drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, so a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home. | If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | Detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | modus ponen | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, so a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the victim's name is laura martinez, and the victim's name is not laura martinez, which implies that officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby. | If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the victim's name is laura martinez | The victim's name is not laura martinez | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | modus tollen | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the victim's name is laura martinez, and the victim's name is not laura martinez, which implies that officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the weather is cold and rainy, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, so it can be concluded that the weather is cold and rainy. | If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the weather is cold and rainy | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | The weather is cold and rainy | modus ponen | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | The weather is cold and rainy | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | The weather is not cold and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the weather is cold and rainy, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, so it can be concluded that the weather is cold and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is setting, because if a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the sun is setting and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement. | If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the sun is setting | A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | The sun is setting | modus ponen | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | The sun is setting | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | The sun is not setting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is setting, because if a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the sun is setting and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, and surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, thus the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars. | If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | modus tollen | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near 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 stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, and surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, thus the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, which establishes that the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, which establishes that the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, which establishes that a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | modus ponen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, which establishes that a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is shedding leaves then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and the tree is shedding leaves, which implies that the baby is crawling towards the toy. | If the tree is shedding leaves then the baby is crawling towards the toy | The tree is shedding leaves | The baby is crawling towards the toy | modus ponen | The tree is shedding leaves | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The tree is not shedding leaves | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is shedding leaves then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and the tree is shedding leaves, which implies that the baby is 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 pizza is hot then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, and the pizza is hot, so it can be concluded that john davis had a history of violating restraining orders. | If the pizza is hot then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders | The pizza is hot | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | modus ponen | The pizza is hot | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | The pizza is not hot | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the pizza is hot then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, and the pizza is hot, so it can be concluded that john davis had a history of violating restraining orders.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, which implies that the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus ponen | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered 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 officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, which implies that the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals 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 the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals. | If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | 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 the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals 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 the suspect had no 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|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.