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 emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, which establishes that the dog is barking at the neighbors. | If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the dog is barking at the neighbors | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The dog is barking at the neighbors | modus ponen | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The dog is barking at the neighbors | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, which establishes that the dog is barking at the neighbors.```<|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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, thus no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings. | If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox | A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | modus tollen | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, thus no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a history of stalking other women, since if john davis had a history of stalking other women then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair. | If john davis had a history of stalking other women then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a history of stalking other women, since if john davis had a history of stalking other women then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.```<|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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the cat is purring, and the cat is not purring, thus the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime. | If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the cat is purring | The cat is not purring | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | modus tollen | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The cat is purring | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | The cat is not purring | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the cat is purring, and the cat is not purring, thus the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, therefore emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder. | If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, therefore 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|>
|
If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the baby is crying loudly, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, so the baby is crying loudly. | If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the baby is crying loudly | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | The baby is crying loudly | modus ponen | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | The baby is crying loudly | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | The baby is not crying loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the baby is crying loudly, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, so the baby is crying loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the baby is crawling, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, therefore the baby is crawling. | If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the baby is crawling | A neighbor heard a gunshot | The baby is crawling | modus ponen | A neighbor heard a gunshot | The baby is crawling | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | The baby is not crawling | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the baby is crawling, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, therefore the baby is crawling.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the dog is barking loudly, and a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, so it can be concluded that the dog is barking loudly. | If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the dog is barking loudly | A fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar | The dog is barking loudly | modus ponen | A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar | The dog is barking loudly | A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar | The dog is not barking loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the dog is barking loudly, and a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, so it can be concluded that the dog is 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 footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and john davis did not have a history of substance abuse, which implies that footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene. | If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then john davis had a history of substance abuse | John davis did not have a history of substance abuse | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | modus tollen | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and john davis did not have a history of substance abuse, which implies that footprints matching john's shoes were not found near 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 detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the book is interesting, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, so the book is interesting. | If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the book is interesting | Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk | The book is interesting | modus ponen | Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | The book is interesting | Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | 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: ```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the book is interesting, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, so the book is interesting.```<|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 bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which shows that the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime. | If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | modus tollen | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which shows that the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not crying in the car, as if the baby is crying in the car then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene. | If the baby is crying in the car then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The baby is not crying in the car | modus tollen | The baby is crying in the car | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The baby is not crying in the car | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair 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: ```The baby is not crying in the car, as if the baby is crying in the car then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair 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|>
|
John davis had a history of anger management issues, as if the sun is shining through the window then john davis had a history of anger management issues and the sun is shining through the window. | If the sun is shining through the window then john davis had a history of anger management issues | The sun is shining through the window | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | modus ponen | The sun is shining through the window | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | The sun is not shining through the window | 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: ```John davis had a history of anger management issues, as if the sun is shining through the window then john davis had a history of anger management issues and the sun is shining through the window.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and the dog is barking at the mailman, which implies that a stolen car was reported near the crime scene. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene | The dog is barking at the mailman | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the mailman | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | The dog is not barking at the mailman | 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: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and the dog is barking at the mailman, which implies that a stolen car was reported near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, thus emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers. | If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | 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 a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, thus emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, so it can be concluded that emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask. | If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | A note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | modus ponen | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, so it can be concluded that emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, as if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information. | If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | modus ponen | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, as if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, and john davis had bruises on his arms, thus the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim. | If john davis had bruises on his arms then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | John davis had bruises on his arms | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | modus ponen | John Davis had bruises on his arms | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had bruises on his arms then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, and john davis had bruises on his arms, thus the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's jewelry box was emptied, as if the apple is red then laura's jewelry box was emptied and the apple is red. | If the apple is red then laura's jewelry box was emptied | The apple is red | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | modus ponen | The apple is red | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | The apple is not red | 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: ```Laura's jewelry box was emptied, as if the apple is red then laura's jewelry box was emptied and the apple is red.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is tall then the cat is purring, and the cat is not purring, which implies that the tree is not tall. | If the tree is tall then the cat is purring | The cat is not purring | The tree is not tall | modus tollen | The tree is tall | The cat is purring | The tree is not tall | The cat is not purring | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is tall then the cat is purring, and the cat is not purring, which implies that the tree is not tall.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then the computer is on, and the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, which shows that the computer is on. | If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then the computer is on | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The computer is on | modus ponen | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The computer is on | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | The computer is not on | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then the computer is on, and the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, which shows that the computer is on.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, because if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | modus tollen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, because if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which shows that emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate. | If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | modus ponen | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which shows that emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, so a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | modus ponen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, so a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, therefore footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene. | If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | modus ponen | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, therefore footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, so sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder. | If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | modus ponen | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, so 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 the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, therefore john davis had recently purchased a firearm. | If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then john davis had recently purchased a firearm | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | modus ponen | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | 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 the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, therefore 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 dogs are not fish then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and dogs are not fish, which establishes that sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder. | If dogs are not fish then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | Dogs are not fish | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | modus ponen | Dogs are not fish | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | Dogs are fish | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot 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 dogs are not fish then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and dogs are not fish, which establishes that 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 the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then laura had installed a home security system, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, so laura had installed a home security system. | If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then laura had installed a home security system | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | Laura had installed a home security system | modus ponen | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | Laura had installed a home security system | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | Laura had not installed a home security system | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then laura had installed a home security system, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, so laura had installed a home security system.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking at the dog next door, because if laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then the dog is barking at the dog next door and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently. | If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then the dog is barking at the dog next door | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | The dog is barking at the dog next door | modus ponen | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | The dog is barking at the dog next door | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking at the dog next door, because if laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then the dog is barking at the dog next door and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the movie is a documentary, and the movie is not a documentary, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery. | If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the movie is a documentary | The movie is not a documentary | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The movie is a documentary | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The movie is not a documentary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the movie is a documentary, and the movie is not a documentary, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, since if richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest. | If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | John davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | modus tollen | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, since if richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, as if sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily. | If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | modus ponen | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, as if sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house and sarah had 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 surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, and detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, which implies that a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby. | If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | Detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | modus tollen | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, and detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, which implies that a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking then laura's wedding ring is missing, and laura's wedding ring is not missing, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking. | If the dog is barking then laura's wedding ring is missing | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | The dog is not barking | modus tollen | The dog is barking | Laura's wedding ring is missing | The dog is not barking | Laura's wedding ring 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 dog is barking then laura's wedding ring is missing, and laura's wedding ring is not missing, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, and a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, thus john davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck. | If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | modus tollen | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect'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 john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, and a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, thus john davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, so no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow. | If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | modus tollen | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | 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 a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, so no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders 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 implies that john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders. | If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders 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 | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | 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 john davis had a history of violating restraining orders 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 implies that 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 john davis had a history of anger management issues then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the suspect had no history of mental health issues, which establishes that john davis did not have a history of anger management issues. | If john davis had a history of anger management issues then the suspect had a history of mental health issues | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of anger management issues then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the suspect had no history of mental health issues, which establishes that john davis did not have 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|>
|
If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, which implies that no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office. | If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | modus tollen | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, which implies that no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a history of stalking other women, since if the movie is a comedy-drama then john davis had a history of stalking other women and the movie is a comedy-drama. | If the movie is a comedy-drama then john davis had a history of stalking other women | The movie is a comedy-drama | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | modus ponen | The movie is a comedy-drama | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | The movie is not a comedy-drama | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a history of stalking other women, since if the movie is a comedy-drama then john davis had a history of stalking other women and the movie is a comedy-drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, because if the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased and the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased. | If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | modus tollen | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, because if the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased and the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a comedy-drama then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and the movie is a comedy-drama, which implies that laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed. | If the movie is a comedy-drama then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | The movie is a comedy-drama | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | modus ponen | The movie is a comedy-drama | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | The movie is not a comedy-drama | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | 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 comedy-drama then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and the movie is a comedy-drama, which implies that laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed.```<|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 book is a collection of short stories, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, hence the book is a collection of short stories. | If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the book is a collection of short stories | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The book is a collection of short stories | modus ponen | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The book is a collection of short stories | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | The book is not a collection of short stories | 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 book is a collection of short stories, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, hence the book is a collection of short stories.```<|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 the pizza is hot, and laura's wedding ring is missing, so it can be concluded that the pizza is hot. | If laura's wedding ring is missing then the pizza is hot | Laura's wedding ring is missing | The pizza is hot | modus ponen | Laura's wedding ring is missing | The pizza is hot | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | The pizza is not hot | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's wedding ring is missing then the pizza is hot, and laura's wedding ring is missing, so it can be concluded that the pizza is hot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, so emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder. | If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | modus ponen | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, so 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|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, which implies that a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone. | If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, which implies that a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, thus the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions. | If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | modus ponen | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, thus the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings, hence no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | modus tollen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings, hence no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, and john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues, which shows that no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow. | If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues | John davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | modus tollen | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, and john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues, which shows that no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, thus surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery. | If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, thus surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, as if the weather is hot and humid then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office and the weather is hot and humid. | If the weather is hot and humid then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The weather is hot and humid | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | modus ponen | The weather is hot and humid | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The weather is not hot and humid | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, as if the weather is hot and humid then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office and the weather is hot and humid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, so it can be concluded that the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment. | If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | modus ponen | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, so it can be concluded that the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, hence the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident. | If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | modus ponen | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, hence the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is exciting then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and the movie is exciting, hence a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow. | If the movie is exciting then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | The movie is exciting | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | modus ponen | The movie is exciting | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | The movie is not exciting | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is exciting then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and the movie is exciting, hence a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the baby is crawling, which establishes that the weather is cloudy and rainy. | If the baby is crawling then the weather is cloudy and rainy | The baby is crawling | The weather is cloudy and rainy | modus ponen | The baby is crawling | The weather is cloudy and rainy | The baby is not crawling | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the baby is crawling, which establishes that the weather is cloudy and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, since if sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene. | If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | modus tollen | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, since if sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.```<|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 book is interesting, and the book is not interesting, which establishes that the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country. | If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the book is interesting | The book is not interesting | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The book is interesting | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | 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: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the book is interesting, and the book is not interesting, which establishes that the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, since if the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees and the robbery occurred 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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | modus ponen | 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: ```The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, since if the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, which shows that laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats. | If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | modus ponen | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | 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 local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, 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|>
|
If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, and no neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, so it can be concluded that laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop. | If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | modus tollen | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, and no neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, so it can be concluded that laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly overhead then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, and no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, therefore the sun is not shining brightly overhead. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | No threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly overhead then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, and no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, therefore the sun is not shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then water is h2o, and water is not h2o, which implies that the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors. | If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then water is h2o | Water is not h2o | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | Water is H2O | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | Water is not H2O | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then water is h2o, and water is not h2o, which implies that the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's garage door was left open then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, therefore laura's garage door was not left open. | If laura's garage door was left open then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Laura's garage door was not left open | modus tollen | Laura's garage door was left open | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Laura's garage door was not left open | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's garage door was left open then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, therefore laura's garage door was not left open.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, which establishes that the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. | If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | modus ponen | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, which establishes that the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms, which shows that a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement. | If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms | John davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | modus tollen | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | 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 local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms, which shows that a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, so the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home. | If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | modus tollen | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | 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 security system recorded the suspect entering their home then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, so the victim's security system did not record 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|>
|
Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, because if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | modus ponen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | 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: ```Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, because if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, as if a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities and the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities. | If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | modus tollen | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, as if a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities and the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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, which implies that no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car. | If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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 | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | modus tollen | A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | 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 bloody shirt was found in john davis's car 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, which implies that no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, because if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive. | If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | modus ponen | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, because if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then sally is older than john, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, so sally is older than john. | If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then sally is older than john | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Sally is older than John | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Sally is older than John | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | 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 suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then sally is older than john, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, so 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 a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, which shows that surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery. | If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | A handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | modus ponen | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | 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 a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, which shows that surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, therefore a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle. | If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | modus ponen | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | 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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, therefore 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|>
|
Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, since if sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe. | If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | John davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | modus tollen | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, since if sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, and a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, therefore the stolen van was not registered in a fake name. | If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | modus tollen | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, and a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, therefore the stolen van was not registered in a fake name.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the weather is mild and pleasant, so the cat is sleeping on the couch. | If the weather is mild and pleasant then the cat is sleeping on the couch | The weather is mild and pleasant | The cat is sleeping on the couch | modus ponen | The weather is mild and pleasant | The cat is sleeping on the couch | The weather is not mild and pleasant | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is mild and pleasant then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the weather is mild and pleasant, so the cat is sleeping on the couch.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, as if the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon. | If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | modus ponen | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, as if the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to 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|>
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, since if john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone. | If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | modus ponen | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, since if john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, and no neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, therefore emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | modus tollen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, and no neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, therefore emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which shows that the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors. | If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which shows that the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the phone is ringing, and the phone is not ringing, so detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter. | If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the phone is ringing | The phone is not ringing | 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 | The phone is ringing | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | The phone is not ringing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the phone is ringing, and the phone is not ringing, so detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter.```<|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 the baby is crying in the car, and the baby is not crying in the car, which shows that the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. | If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the baby is crying in the car | The baby is not crying in the car | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | modus tollen | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The baby is crying in the car | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The baby is not crying in the car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the baby is crying in the car, and the baby is not crying in the car, which shows that the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is grooming itself, as if the car is a sedan then the cat is grooming itself and the car is a sedan. | If the car is a sedan then the cat is grooming itself | The car is a sedan | The cat is grooming itself | modus ponen | The car is a sedan | The cat is grooming itself | The car is not a sedan | The cat is not grooming itself | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is grooming itself, as if the car is a sedan then the cat is grooming itself and the car is a sedan.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky, since if emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office and no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office. | If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | 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 | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky, since if emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office and no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, thus a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard. | If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | modus ponen | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect'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 local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, thus a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect'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 the sun is shining through the window then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, and no threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, thus the sun is not shining through the window. | If the sun is shining through the window then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace | No threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace | The sun is not shining through the window | modus tollen | The sun is shining through the window | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | The sun is not shining through the window | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining through the window then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, and no threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, thus the sun is not shining through the window.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, so it can be concluded that the murder weapon was not a baseball bat. | If the murder weapon was a baseball bat 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 murder weapon was not a baseball bat | modus tollen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | 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 murder weapon was a baseball bat then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, so it can be concluded that the murder weapon was not a baseball bat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, therefore john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest. | If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | modus ponen | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, therefore john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, so the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | modus ponen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, so the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user.```<|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 laura's prescription medications were stolen, and the movie is a family film, therefore laura's prescription medications were stolen. | If the movie is a family film then laura's prescription medications were stolen | The movie is a family film | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | modus ponen | The movie is a family film | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | The movie is not a family film | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | 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 laura's prescription medications were stolen, and the movie is a family film, therefore laura's prescription medications were stolen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the phone is ringing then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, and the phone is ringing, so a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment. | If the phone is ringing then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The phone is ringing | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | modus ponen | The phone is ringing | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The phone is not ringing | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the phone is ringing then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, and the phone is ringing, so a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, hence a shattered vase was not found in the hallway. | If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | modus tollen | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, hence a shattered vase was not found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, because if a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone. | If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | modus ponen | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, because if a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the dog is barking at the television, and the dog is not barking at the television, so a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store. | If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the dog is barking at the television | The dog is not barking at the television | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | modus tollen | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The dog is barking at the television | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | 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 a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the dog is barking at the television, and the dog is not barking at the television, so a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then laura's passport is missing, and laura's passport is not missing, hence no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then laura's passport is missing | Laura's passport is not missing | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | modus tollen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Laura's passport is missing | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | 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 a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then laura's passport is missing, and laura's passport is not missing, hence no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, since if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | modus ponen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | 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: ```A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, since if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, and no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, which establishes that john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues. | If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, and no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, which establishes that john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a science fiction film then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, therefore the movie is not a science fiction film. | If the movie is a science fiction film then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The movie is not a science fiction film | modus tollen | The movie is a science fiction film | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The movie is not a science fiction film | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a science fiction film then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, therefore the movie is not a science fiction film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, as if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder. | If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | modus ponen | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, as if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.