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 security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the baby is playing with toys, and the baby is not playing with toys, which shows that no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the baby is playing with toys | The baby is not playing with toys | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | modus tollen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The baby is playing with toys | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The baby is not playing with toys | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the baby is playing with toys, and the baby is not playing with toys, which shows that no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, hence laura had recently changed her social media passwords. | If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then laura had recently changed her social media passwords | John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | modus ponen | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, hence laura had recently changed her social media passwords.```<|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 strand of hair was found at the crime scene then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, thus a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene. | If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | modus tollen | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, thus a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so it can be concluded that the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery. | If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | modus ponen | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so it can be concluded that the store's alarm system was 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 the bird is singing then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and the bird is singing, so richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions. | If the bird is singing then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The bird is singing | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | modus ponen | The bird is singing | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The bird is not singing | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the bird is singing then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and the bird is singing, so richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then john davis had a secret storage unit, and john davis did not have a secret storage unit, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then john davis had a secret storage unit | John davis did not have a secret storage unit | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | modus tollen | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | John Davis had a secret storage unit | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then john davis had a secret storage unit, and john davis did not have a secret storage unit, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is crawling, because if the phone is ringing then the baby is crawling and the phone is ringing. | If the phone is ringing then the baby is crawling | The phone is ringing | The baby is crawling | modus ponen | The phone is ringing | The baby is crawling | The phone is not ringing | The baby is not crawling | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is crawling, because if the phone is ringing then the baby is crawling and the phone is ringing.```<|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 not grooming itself in front of the mirror, as if the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the dog is barking at the door and the dog is not barking at the door. | If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the dog is barking at the door | The dog is not barking at the door | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | modus tollen | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | The dog is barking at the door | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | The dog is not barking at the door | 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 not grooming itself in front of the mirror, as if the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the dog is barking at the door and the dog is not barking at the door.```<|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 handprint was not found on sarah's car door, as if a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle. | If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | modus tollen | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door, as if a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, since if a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number and the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number. | If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | modus tollen | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, since if a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number and the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a secret storage unit then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, thus john davis did not have a secret storage unit. | If john davis had a secret storage unit then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | modus tollen | John Davis had a secret storage unit | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a secret storage unit then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, thus john davis did not have a secret storage unit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the car is a sedan, and the car is not a sedan, thus the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead. | If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the car is a sedan | The car is not a sedan | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | modus tollen | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The car is a sedan | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The car is not a sedan | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the car is a sedan, and the car is not a sedan, thus the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, as if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape. | If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | modus tollen | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | 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: ```The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, as if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder 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 laura had a life insurance policy then dogs are not fish, and dogs are fish, so laura did not have a life insurance policy. | If laura had a life insurance policy then dogs are not fish | Dogs are fish | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | modus tollen | Laura had a life insurance policy | Dogs are not fish | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | Dogs are fish | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a life insurance policy then dogs are not fish, and dogs are fish, so laura did not have a life insurance policy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Water is h2o, since if the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then water is h2o and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail. | If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then water is h2o | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | Water is H2O | modus ponen | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | Water is H2O | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | Water is not H2O | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Water is h2o, since if the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then water is h2o and the victim had 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 a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, and the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, which implies that a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene. | If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, and the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, which implies that a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask 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 john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the cat is black, and the cat is not black, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone. | If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the cat is black | The cat is not black | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | modus tollen | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The cat is black | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The cat is not black | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the cat is black, and the cat is not black, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, which establishes that surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store. | If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | modus ponen | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, which establishes that surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is shining brightly, as if a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the sun is shining brightly and a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned. | If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the sun is shining brightly | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The sun is shining brightly | modus ponen | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The sun is shining brightly | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The sun is not shining brightly | 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 shining brightly, as if a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the sun is shining brightly and 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 the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, and the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, thus surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store. | If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | modus ponen | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | 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 cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, and the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, thus surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the book is on the nightstand, and the book is not on the nightstand, so the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery. | If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the book is on the nightstand | The book is not on the nightstand | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | modus tollen | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The book is on the nightstand | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | The book is not on the nightstand | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the book is on the nightstand, and the book is not on the nightstand, so 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 the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, hence the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster. | If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | modus tollen | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, hence 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 victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, so the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data. | If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the movie is a comedy-drama | The movie is not a comedy-drama | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | modus tollen | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The movie is a comedy-drama | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | The movie is not a comedy-drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, so the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, since if the weather is nice then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery and the weather is nice. | If the weather is nice then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | The weather is nice | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | modus ponen | The weather is nice | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | The weather is not nice | 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: ```A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, since if the weather is nice then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery and the weather is nice.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, because if a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the cat is grooming itself and the cat is not grooming itself. | If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the cat is grooming itself | The cat is not grooming itself | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | modus tollen | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The cat is grooming itself | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | 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: ```A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, because if a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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 witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, so a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake. | If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | 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 witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, so a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a musical film then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, which implies that the movie is not a musical film. | If the movie is a musical film then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | The movie is not a musical film | modus tollen | The movie is a musical film | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The movie is not a musical film | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a musical film then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, which implies that the movie is not a musical film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had bruises on his arms, as if laura's wedding ring is missing then john davis had bruises on his arms and laura's wedding ring is missing. | If laura's wedding ring is missing then john davis had bruises on his arms | Laura's wedding ring is missing | John Davis had bruises on his arms | modus ponen | Laura's wedding ring is missing | John Davis had bruises on his arms | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | 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: ```John davis had bruises on his arms, as if laura's wedding ring is missing then john davis had bruises on his arms 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|>
|
Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, because if the baby is crying loudly then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park and the baby is crying loudly. | If the baby is crying loudly then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The baby is crying loudly | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | modus ponen | The baby is crying loudly | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The baby is not crying loudly | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, because if the baby is crying loudly then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park and the baby is 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|>
|
Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, since if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim and the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim. | If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | 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 man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, since if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim and the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 had a history of stalking laura then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, and john davis had a history of stalking laura, therefore the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation. | If john davis had a history of stalking laura then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | John davis had a history of stalking laura | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of stalking laura then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, and john davis had a history of stalking laura, therefore the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation.```<|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 delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, hence a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store. | If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | modus tollen | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask 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 a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, hence a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near 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 suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, because if richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account. | If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus ponen | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | 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: ```The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, because if richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, hence the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead. | If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | modus tollen | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, hence the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which establishes that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft. | If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | modus ponen | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which establishes that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's pet cat is missing then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and laura's pet cat is missing, hence a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat. | If laura's pet cat is missing then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat | Laura's pet cat is missing | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | modus ponen | Laura's pet cat is missing | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | Laura's pet cat is not missing | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | 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 pet cat is missing then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and laura's pet cat is missing, hence a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not playing with toys, since if the baby is playing with toys then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment and no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If the baby is playing with toys then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | No stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | The baby is not playing with toys | modus tollen | The baby is playing with toys | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | The baby is not playing with toys | 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: ```The baby is not playing with toys, since if the baby is playing with toys 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|>
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, because if emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then john davis has a history of violent behavior and john davis does not have a history of violent behavior. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then john davis has a history of violent behavior | John davis does not have a history of violent behavior | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | modus tollen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, because if emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then john davis has a history of violent behavior and john davis does not have a history of violent behavior.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, because if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the book is a mystery novel and the book is not a mystery novel. | If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the book is a mystery novel | The book is not a mystery novel | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | modus tollen | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | The book is a mystery novel | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | The book is not a mystery novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, because if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the book is a mystery novel and the book is not a mystery 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 the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, which shows that richard anderson had a history of financial troubles. | If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | modus ponen | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | 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 the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, 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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the sun is shining through the window, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, hence the sun is shining through the window. | If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the sun is shining through the window | A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat | The sun is shining through the window | modus ponen | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | The sun is shining through the window | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | The sun is not shining through the window | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the sun is shining through the window, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, hence the sun is shining through the window.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is black then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and the cat is black, which establishes that john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs. | If the cat is black then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | The cat is black | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | modus ponen | The cat is black | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | The cat is not black | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is black then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and the cat is black, which establishes that john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased, which implies that detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom. | If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | modus tollen | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | 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 detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased, which implies that detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, as if emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder. | If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | modus ponen | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, as if emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the suspect's name is john davis, and the suspect's name is not john davis, hence the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim. | If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the suspect's name is john davis | The suspect's name is not john davis | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The suspect's name is John Davis | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | 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 suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the suspect's name is john davis, and the suspect's name is not john davis, hence the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, as if the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery 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 store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | modus ponen | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, as if the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery 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 richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then laura's house was booby-trapped, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, hence laura's house was booby-trapped. | If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then laura's house was booby-trapped | Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Laura's house was booby-trapped | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Laura's house was booby-trapped | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then laura's house was booby-trapped, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, hence laura's house was booby-trapped.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, which shows that the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation. | If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox | A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | modus tollen | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, which shows that the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of identity theft then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, and john davis had a history of identity theft, therefore the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity. | If john davis had a history of identity theft then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | John davis had a history of identity theft | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of identity theft | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of identity theft then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, and john davis had a history of identity theft, therefore the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, as if sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing 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. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | modus tollen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | 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: ```Sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, as if sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, thus john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs. | If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | modus ponen | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, thus john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor heard a gunshot then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, so it can be concluded that a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park. | If a neighbor heard a gunshot then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A neighbor heard a gunshot | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | modus ponen | A neighbor heard a gunshot | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor heard a gunshot then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, so it can be concluded that a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, because if the sun is setting then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard and the sun is setting. | If the sun is setting then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | The sun is setting | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | modus ponen | The sun is setting | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | The sun is not setting | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, because if the sun is setting then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard and the sun is setting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, which implies that a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office. | If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | A note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | modus ponen | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, which implies that a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, and the suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim, hence john davis had not recently purchased a firearm. | If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | modus tollen | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | The suspect did not have a history of violence against 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 john davis had recently purchased a firearm then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, and the suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim, hence john davis had not recently purchased a firearm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, so sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily. | If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | modus ponen | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, so sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then the car is a sedan, and the car is not a sedan, thus the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect. | If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then the car is a sedan | The car is not a sedan | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The car is a sedan | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | The car is not a sedan | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then the car is a sedan, and the car is not a sedan, thus the victim did not have a restraining order against 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|>
|
The dog is not barking, as if the dog is barking then the dog is barking at the dog next door and the dog is not barking at the dog next door. | If the dog is barking then the dog is barking at the dog next door | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | The dog is not barking | modus tollen | The dog is barking | The dog is barking at the dog next door | The dog is not barking | 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 not barking, as if the dog is barking then the dog is barking at the dog next door and the dog is not barking at the dog next door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, since if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the book is a mystery novel and the book is not a mystery novel. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the book is a mystery novel | The book is not a mystery novel | 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 | The book is a mystery novel | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The book is not a mystery novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, since if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the book is a mystery novel and the book is not a mystery novel.```<|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 necklace was found in marcus's apartment, since if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom and no broken window was found in laura's bedroom. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom | No broken window was found in laura's bedroom | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | modus tollen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, since if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom and no broken window was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, so john davis had a history of stalking laura. | If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then john davis had a history of stalking laura | Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | modus ponen | Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, so john davis had a history of stalking laura.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects and detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | modus tollen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects and detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then the weather is nice, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, which implies that the weather is nice. | If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then the weather is nice | A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | The weather is nice | modus ponen | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | The weather is nice | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | The weather is not nice | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then the weather is nice, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, which implies that the weather is nice.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, therefore the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information. | If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | modus tollen | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, therefore the victim's laptop did not contain 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|>
|
If the book is a romance novel then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and the book is a romance novel, which establishes that a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned. | If the book is a romance novel then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The book is a romance novel | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | modus ponen | The book is a romance novel | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The book is not a romance novel | 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 the book is a romance novel then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and the book is a romance novel, 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|>
|
Cats are mammals, because if the book is a romance novel then cats are mammals and the book is a romance novel. | If the book is a romance novel then cats are mammals | The book is a romance novel | Cats are mammals | modus ponen | The book is a romance novel | Cats are mammals | The book is not a romance novel | Cats are not mammals | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Cats are mammals, because if the book is a romance novel then cats are mammals and the book is 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 laura's house was booby-trapped then the tree is tall, and laura's house was booby-trapped, which shows that the tree is tall. | If laura's house was booby-trapped then the tree is tall | Laura's house was booby-trapped | The tree is tall | modus ponen | Laura's house was booby-trapped | The tree is tall | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | The tree is not tall | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's house was booby-trapped then the tree is tall, and laura's house was booby-trapped, which shows that the tree is tall.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which shows that a fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect. | If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | modus tollen | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | 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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which shows that a fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, and the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number, hence the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim. | If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | modus tollen | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, and the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number, hence the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against 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|>
|
Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, since if officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the book is on the table and the book is not on the table. | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the book is on the table | The book is not on the table | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | modus tollen | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The book is on the table | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | The book is not on the table | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, since if officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the book is on the table and the book is not on the table.```<|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 a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, therefore a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster. | If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | modus ponen | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, therefore a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, which implies that a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | modus ponen | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | 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 social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, which implies 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 officer brown discovered a hidden basement then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and officer brown discovered a hidden basement, so a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene. | If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | Officer brown discovered a hidden basement | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | modus ponen | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and officer brown discovered a hidden basement, so a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the dog next door then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the dog is barking at the dog next door, which establishes that the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses. | If the dog is barking at the dog next door then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The dog is barking at the dog next door | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the dog next door | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | 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 dog is barking at the dog next door then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the dog is barking at the dog next door, which establishes that the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, which implies that the sun is shining brightly overhead. | If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the sun is shining brightly overhead | John davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The sun is shining brightly overhead | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The sun is shining brightly overhead | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, which implies that the sun is shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, which shows that the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years. | If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, which shows that the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then the baby is crying, and laura's laptop was found smashed, thus the baby is crying. | If laura's laptop was found smashed then the baby is crying | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The baby is crying | modus ponen | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The baby is crying | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | The baby is not crying | 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 laptop was found smashed then the baby is crying, and laura's laptop was found smashed, thus the baby is crying.```<|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 local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, and john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders, which shows that a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement. | If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders | John davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | modus tollen | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | 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 a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, and john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders, which shows that a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not 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 a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the cat is purring contentedly, and a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, thus the cat is purring contentedly. | If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the cat is purring contentedly | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | The cat is purring contentedly | modus ponen | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The cat is purring contentedly | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The cat is not purring contentedly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the cat is purring contentedly, and a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, thus the cat is purring contentedly.```<|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 over the phone then the movie is a sports film, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, which establishes that the movie is a sports film. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the movie is a sports film | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The movie is a sports film | modus ponen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The movie is a sports film | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The movie is not a sports film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the movie is a sports film, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, which establishes that the movie is a sports film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the apple is red, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, so the apple is red. | If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the apple is red | Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | The apple is red | modus ponen | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | The apple is red | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | The apple is not red | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the apple is red, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, so the apple is red.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the car is a hybrid, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, which establishes that the car is a hybrid. | If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the car is a hybrid | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | The car is a hybrid | modus ponen | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | The car is a hybrid | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | The car is not a hybrid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the car is a hybrid, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, which establishes that the car is a hybrid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and the sun is not shining brightly in the sky, which implies that the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased. | If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the sun is shining brightly in the sky | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | modus tollen | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and the sun is not shining brightly in the sky, which implies that the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring loudly then the movie is a drama, and the movie is not a drama, so it can be concluded that the cat is not purring loudly. | If the cat is purring loudly then the movie is a drama | The movie is not a drama | The cat is not purring loudly | modus tollen | The cat is purring loudly | The movie is a drama | The cat is not purring loudly | The movie is not a drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring loudly then the movie is a drama, and the movie is not a drama, so it can be concluded that 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|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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, therefore the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools. | If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then 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 suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | 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 suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools 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, therefore the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, hence detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk. | If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk | A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | modus ponen | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, hence detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, which shows that the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery. | If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | modus tollen | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, which shows that the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation 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 the book is on the nightstand then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and the book is on the nightstand, which implies that a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow. | If the book is on the nightstand then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | The book is on the nightstand | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | modus ponen | The book is on the nightstand | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | The book is not on the nightstand | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the nightstand then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and the book is on the nightstand, which implies that a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, and john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues, which implies that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues | John davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | modus tollen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, and john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues, which implies that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, so it can be concluded that the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation. | If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | modus tollen | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, so it can be concluded that the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.```<|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 exciting then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and the movie is exciting, so emily had recently taken a self-defense course. | If the movie is exciting then emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The movie is exciting | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | modus ponen | The movie is exciting | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The movie is not exciting | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is exciting then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and the movie is exciting, so emily had recently taken a self-defense course.```<|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, because if a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | 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, because if a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the baby is crying, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, so the baby is crying. | If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the baby is crying | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The baby is crying | modus ponen | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The baby is crying | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The baby is not crying | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the baby is crying, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, so the baby is crying.```<|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 shining through the window, since if detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the sun is shining through the window and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park. | If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the sun is shining through the window | Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The sun is shining through the window | modus ponen | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The sun is shining through the window | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The sun is not shining through the window | 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 shining through the window, since if detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the sun is shining through the window and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident, so no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | modus tollen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident, so no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then the sun is setting, and the sun is not setting, which implies that no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby. | If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then the sun is setting | The sun is not setting | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | modus tollen | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | The sun is setting | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | 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: ```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then the sun is setting, and the sun is not setting, which implies that no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, so it can be concluded that sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy. | If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | modus ponen | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, so it can be concluded that sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, as if the bird is singing then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder and the bird is singing. | If the bird is singing then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | The bird is singing | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | modus ponen | The bird is singing | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | The bird is not singing | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, as if the bird is singing then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder and the bird is singing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, hence the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | modus ponen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | 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 laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, hence 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|>
|
If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, so no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house. | If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the baby is crawling | The baby is not crawling | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | modus tollen | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The baby is crawling | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The baby is not crawling | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, so no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.