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 john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, hence john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents. | If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | modus tollen | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, hence john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, hence a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits. | If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | modus tollen | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | 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 a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, hence a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, which establishes that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | modus tollen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | 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 a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, which establishes that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day 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 sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, so a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home | Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | modus ponen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, so a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of anger management issues then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, which shows that officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby. | If john davis had a history of anger management issues then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | John davis had a history of anger management issues | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of anger management issues then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, which shows that officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, which establishes that sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death. | If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | modus tollen | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, which establishes that sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, which establishes that a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry. | If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | modus ponen | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | 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 owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, which establishes that a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, because if detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder and emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder. | If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | modus tollen | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, because if detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder and emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, because if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data. | If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | modus tollen | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, because if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data and 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|>
|
If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, hence john davis was found with a bag of cash. | If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then john davis was found with a bag of cash | The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | modus ponen | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, hence john davis was found with a bag of cash.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the computer is on, and the computer is not on, so it can be concluded that sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily. | If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the computer is on | The computer is not on | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | modus tollen | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | The computer is on | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | The computer is not on | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the computer is on, and the computer is not on, so it can be concluded that sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, so a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat. | If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | modus tollen | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, so a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain 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|>
|
If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, and emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers, which shows that the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed. | If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers | 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 emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, and emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers, which shows that the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed.```<|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 emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, which shows that the book is not on the nightstand. | If the book is on the nightstand then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The book is not on the nightstand | modus tollen | The book is on the nightstand | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The book is not on the nightstand | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the nightstand then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, which shows that the book is not on the nightstand.```<|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 eating food then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, and the cat is eating food, therefore a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence. | If the cat is eating food then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | The cat is eating food | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | modus ponen | The cat is eating food | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | The cat is not eating food | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is eating food then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, and the cat is eating food, therefore a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which implies that sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy. | If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the book is written by a famous author | The book is not written by a famous author | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | modus tollen | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The book is written by a famous author | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which implies that sarah had not 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|>
|
If the movie is a family film then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, thus the movie is not a family film. | If the movie is a family film then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home | A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home | The movie is not a family film | modus tollen | The movie is a family film | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | The movie is not a family film | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a family film then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, thus the movie is not a family 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 surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, thus surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery. | If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then the dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is not barking at the mailman | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The dog is barking at the mailman | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The dog is not barking at the mailman | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, thus surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after 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 movie is a horror film then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which implies that the movie is not a horror film. | If the movie is a horror film then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | The movie is not a horror film | modus tollen | The movie is a horror film | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The movie is not a horror film | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a horror film then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which implies that the movie is not a horror film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the car is a sedan, and the car is not a sedan, so witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist. | If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the car is a sedan | The car is not a sedan | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | modus tollen | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | The car is a sedan | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | 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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the car is a sedan, and the car is not a sedan, so witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the book is interesting and the book is not interesting. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the book is interesting | The book is not interesting | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | modus tollen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The book is interesting | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The book is not interesting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the book is interesting and the book is not interesting.```<|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 in the sky, since if a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the sun is shining brightly in the sky and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings. | If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the sun is shining brightly in the sky | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | modus ponen | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | 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: ```The sun is shining brightly in the sky, since if a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the sun is shining brightly in the sky and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's wedding ring is missing then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, and no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, which establishes that laura's wedding ring is not missing. | If laura's wedding ring is missing then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | modus tollen | Laura's wedding ring is missing | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's wedding ring is missing then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, and no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, which establishes that laura's wedding ring is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is shedding leaves then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and the tree is shedding leaves, thus the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools. | If the tree is shedding leaves then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The tree is shedding leaves | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | modus ponen | The tree is shedding leaves | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The tree is not shedding leaves | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is shedding leaves then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and the tree is shedding leaves, thus the suspect had 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 sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the football is round, and the football is not round, which implies that sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy. | If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the football is round | The football is not round | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | modus tollen | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The football is round | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The football is not round | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the football is round, and the football is not round, which implies that sarah had not 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|>
|
If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, therefore laura's car was not found with a slashed tire. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | modus tollen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, therefore laura's car was not found with a slashed tire.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is drinking from a bottle then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, hence the baby is not drinking from a bottle. | If the baby is drinking from a bottle then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | modus tollen | The baby is drinking from a bottle | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is drinking from a bottle then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, hence the baby is not drinking from a bottle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, which establishes that the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m. | If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | modus tollen | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, which establishes that the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then the movie is a sports film, and the movie is not a sports film, which establishes that laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway. | If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then the movie is a sports film | The movie is not a sports film | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | modus tollen | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | The movie is a sports film | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | 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 laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then the movie is a sports film, and the movie is not a sports film, which establishes that laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the book is a memoir, and the book is not a memoir, therefore the baby is not crawling towards the toy. | If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the book is a memoir | The book is not a memoir | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The book is a memoir | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | The book is not a memoir | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the book is a memoir, and the book is not a memoir, therefore the baby is not crawling towards the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is not setting, because if the sun is setting then the dog is barking at the squirrel and the dog is not barking at the squirrel. | If the sun is setting then the dog is barking at the squirrel | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | The sun is not setting | modus tollen | The sun is setting | The dog is barking at the squirrel | The sun is not setting | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not setting, because if the sun is setting then the dog is barking at the squirrel and the dog is not barking at the squirrel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, so surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store. | If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, so surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so it can be concluded that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft. | If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | modus ponen | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | 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 detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so it can be concluded that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then john davis has a history of violent behavior, and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, which implies that john davis has a history of violent behavior. | If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then john davis has a history of violent behavior | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | modus ponen | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | 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: ```If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then john davis has a history of violent behavior, and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, which implies that john davis has 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|>
|
If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, hence a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home. | If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | modus ponen | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, hence a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect 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, so the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect. | If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect 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 will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | modus tollen | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | 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 will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect 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, so the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems. | If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, because if the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If paris is in france then laura's garage door was left open, and paris is in france, so laura's garage door was left open. | If paris is in france then laura's garage door was left open | Paris is in france | Laura's garage door was left open | modus ponen | Paris is in France | Laura's garage door was left open | Paris is not in France | Laura's garage door was not left open | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If paris is in france then laura's garage door was left open, and paris is in france, so laura's garage door was left open.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, hence richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery. | If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | modus tollen | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, hence richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, which shows that a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry. | If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | 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 a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, which shows that a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, hence a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe. | If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | modus ponen | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, hence a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and officer brown discovered a hidden basement, so a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house. | If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | Officer brown discovered a hidden basement | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | modus ponen | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and officer brown discovered a hidden basement, so a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and a bloody footprint was found in the living room, thus the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home. | If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | modus ponen | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and a bloody footprint was found in the living room, thus the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the cat is purring loudly, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, therefore the cat is purring loudly. | If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the cat is purring loudly | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | The cat is purring loudly | modus ponen | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | The cat is purring loudly | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | The cat is not purring loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the cat is purring loudly, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, therefore the cat is 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 a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, 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 stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | modus tollen | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, 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 emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, so a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle. | If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | modus ponen | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, so a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle.```<|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 cats are mammals, and cats are not mammals, 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 cats are mammals | Cats are not mammals | 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 | Cats are mammals | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | Cats are not mammals | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then cats are mammals, and cats are not mammals, 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 the sun is shining then a shattered vase was found in the hallway, and the sun is shining, so a shattered vase was found in the hallway. | If the sun is shining then a shattered vase was found in the hallway | The sun is shining | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | modus ponen | The sun is shining | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | The sun is not shining | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining then a shattered vase was found in the hallway, and the sun is shining, so a shattered vase was found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's garage door was left open, since if john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then laura's garage door was left open and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs. | If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then laura's garage door was left open | John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | Laura's garage door was left open | modus ponen | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | Laura's garage door was left open | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | Laura's garage door was not left open | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's garage door was left open, since if john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then laura's garage door was left open and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, so it can be concluded that no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard. | If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | modus tollen | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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 witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, so it can be concluded that no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, hence john davis had recently purchased a firearm. | If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then john davis had recently purchased a firearm | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | modus ponen | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, hence john davis had recently purchased a firearm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, so the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon. | If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | modus ponen | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, so the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, hence the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information. | If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | modus tollen | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, hence 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|>
|
A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, because if sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder. | If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | modus ponen | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | 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: ```A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, because if sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot 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 laura's car was found with a slashed tire then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, hence laura's car was not found with a slashed tire. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | modus tollen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, hence laura's car was not found with a slashed tire.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the book is on the bestseller list, and laura's phone records show calls to 911, which implies that the book is on the bestseller list. | If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the book is on the bestseller list | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | The book is on the bestseller list | modus ponen | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | The book is on the bestseller list | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | The book is not on the bestseller list | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the book is on the bestseller list, and laura's phone records show calls to 911, which implies that the book is on the bestseller list.```<|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 life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then sally is older than john, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, therefore sally is older than john. | If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then sally is older than john | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | Sally is older than John | modus ponen | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | Sally is older than John | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | Sally is not older than John | 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 life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then sally is older than john, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, therefore sally is older than john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the water is warm then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and no witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, which implies that the water is not warm. | If the water is warm then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The water is not warm | modus tollen | The water is warm | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The water is not warm | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the water is warm then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and no witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, which implies that the water is not warm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, thus sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder. | If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | modus ponen | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, thus sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, because if footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the cat is sleeping soundly and the cat is not sleeping soundly. | If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the cat is sleeping soundly | The cat is not sleeping soundly | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | modus tollen | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | The cat is sleeping soundly | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | The cat is not sleeping soundly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, because if footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the cat is sleeping soundly and the cat is not sleeping soundly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky, as if emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft. | If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | modus tollen | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | 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: ```Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky, as if emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that john davis had a history of anger management issues. | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then john davis had a history of anger management issues | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | modus ponen | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that john davis had a history of anger management issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, since if emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man and no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | No homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | modus tollen | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, since if emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man and no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which implies that emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder. | If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | modus ponen | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which implies that emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument 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|>
|
A stolen car was reported near the crime scene, as if john davis had a history of anger management issues then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene and john davis had a history of anger management issues. | If john davis had a history of anger management issues then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene | John davis had a history of anger management issues | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A stolen car was reported near the crime scene, as if john davis had a history of anger management issues then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene and john davis had a history of anger management issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, because if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the dog is barking loudly and the dog is not barking loudly. | If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the dog is barking loudly | The dog is not barking loudly | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | modus tollen | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | The dog is barking loudly | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | The dog is not barking loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, because if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the dog is barking loudly and the dog is not barking 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 john davis had a history of substance abuse then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, hence john davis did not have a history of substance abuse. | If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, hence john davis did not have a history of substance abuse.```<|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 owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van, which shows that the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees. | If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | modus tollen | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | 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 owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van, which shows that the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment, since if the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the movie is a comedy and the movie is not a comedy. | If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the movie is a comedy | The movie is not a comedy | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | modus tollen | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The movie is a comedy | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | The movie is not a comedy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment, since if the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the movie is a comedy and the movie is not a comedy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, which implies that the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect. | If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, which implies that the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a romance novel then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and laura's jewelry box was not emptied, which shows that the book is not a romance novel. | If the book is a romance novel then laura's jewelry box was emptied | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | The book is not a romance novel | modus tollen | The book is a romance novel | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | The book is not a romance novel | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a romance novel then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and laura's jewelry box was not emptied, which shows that the book is not a romance novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is eating food, because if the cat is purring loudly then the cat is eating food and the cat is purring loudly. | If the cat is purring loudly then the cat is eating food | The cat is purring loudly | The cat is eating food | modus ponen | The cat is purring loudly | The cat is eating food | The cat is not purring loudly | The cat is not eating food | 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 eating food, because if the cat is purring loudly then the cat is eating food and the cat is 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 officer brown discovered a hidden basement then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, hence officer brown did not discover a hidden basement. | If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | modus tollen | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, hence officer brown did not discover a hidden basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, hence the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment. | If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | modus tollen | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, hence the victim's car keys were not 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 the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, and the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain, which establishes that the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses. | If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | modus tollen | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | 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 alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, and the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain, which establishes that the suspect's alibi was not 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 a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms, which shows that no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms | John davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | 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 footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms, which shows that no 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|>
|
Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, as if detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders and john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders. | If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders | John davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | modus tollen | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | 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: ```Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, as if detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders and john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing. | If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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 | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | modus tollen | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | 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: ```If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing 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, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then laura's passport is missing, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that laura's passport is missing. | If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then laura's passport is missing | The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | Laura's passport is missing | modus ponen | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | Laura's passport is missing | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | Laura's passport is not missing | 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 dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then laura's passport is missing, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that laura's passport 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|>
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, since if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene and no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | modus tollen | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | 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: ```Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, since if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene and no 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 laura's passport is missing then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and laura's passport is missing, so it can be concluded that a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen. | If laura's passport is missing then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | Laura's passport is missing | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | modus ponen | Laura's passport is missing | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | Laura's passport is not missing | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | 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 passport is missing then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and laura's passport is missing, so it can be concluded that a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, as if the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker. | If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | modus ponen | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, as if the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The car is not a sedan, because if the car is a sedan then the baby is crawling towards the cat and the baby is not crawling towards the cat. | If the car is a sedan then the baby is crawling towards the cat | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | The car is not a sedan | modus tollen | The car is a sedan | The baby is crawling towards the cat | The car is not a sedan | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is not a sedan, because if the car is a sedan then the baby is crawling towards the cat and the baby is not crawling towards the cat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, so the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, so the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim'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 laura's passport is missing then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and laura's passport is missing, thus laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal. | If laura's passport is missing then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Laura's passport is missing | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | modus ponen | Laura's passport is missing | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Laura's passport is not missing | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's passport is missing then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and laura's passport is missing, thus laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the sky is blue, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, which implies that the sky is blue. | If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the sky is blue | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The sky is blue | modus ponen | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The sky is blue | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The sky is not blue | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the sky is blue, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, which implies that the sky is blue.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, as if a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home | A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | modus ponen | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, as if a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the table then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, and detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, thus the book is not on the table. | If the book is on the table then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | Detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | The book is not on the table | modus tollen | The book is on the table | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | The book is not on the table | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the table then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, and detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, thus 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 the victim had a restraining order against 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, hence the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect. | If the victim had a restraining order against 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 | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim did not have a restraining order against 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 the victim had a restraining order against 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, hence 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|>
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, which shows that laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | modus ponen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, which shows that laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot, as if the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then a neighbor heard a gunshot and the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery. | If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then a neighbor heard a gunshot | The security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | A neighbor heard a gunshot | modus ponen | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | A neighbor heard a gunshot | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor heard a gunshot, as if the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then a neighbor heard a gunshot and the security guard, marcus, was 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 a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, which implies that detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard. | If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | modus ponen | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, which implies that detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, therefore laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident. | If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | modus tollen | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | 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: ```If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, therefore laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, since if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then water is h2o and water is not h2o. | If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then water is h2o | Water is not h2o | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | modus tollen | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | Water is H2O | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | 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: ```A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, since if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then water is h2o and water is not h2o.```<|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 did not have a history of violence against the victim, because if the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the movie is a horror film and the movie is not a horror film. | If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the movie is a horror film | The movie is not a horror film | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The movie is a horror film | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | The movie is not a horror film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim, because if the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the movie is a horror film and the movie is not a horror film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's house was booby-trapped then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, which shows that laura's house was not booby-trapped. | If laura's house was booby-trapped then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | modus tollen | Laura's house was booby-trapped | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | 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 a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, which shows that laura's house was not 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|>
|
The book is written by a famous author, as if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the book is written by a famous author and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene. | If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the book is written by a famous author | A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | The book is written by a famous author | modus ponen | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | The book is written by a famous author | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is written by a famous author, as if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the book is written by a famous author and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the dog is barking at the television, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, thus the dog is barking at the television. | If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the dog is barking at the television | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The dog is barking at the television | modus ponen | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The dog is barking at the television | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | The dog is not barking at the television | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the dog is barking at the television, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, thus the dog is barking at the television.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is tall then the car is moving, and the tree is tall, which implies that the car is moving. | If the tree is tall then the car is moving | The tree is tall | The car is moving | modus ponen | The tree is tall | The car is moving | The tree is not tall | The car is not moving | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is tall then the car is moving, and the tree is tall, which implies that the car is moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not crawling towards the door, as if the baby is crawling towards the door then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker and the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker. | If the baby is crawling towards the door then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | The baby is not crawling towards the door | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the door | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The baby is not crawling towards the door | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | 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 crawling towards the door, as if the baby is crawling towards the door then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker and the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.