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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident, so emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky. | If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | 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 | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident, so emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky.```<|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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues. | If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat | A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, so it can be concluded 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 a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, so the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals. | If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | modus ponen | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, so the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If paris is in france then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, so it can be concluded that paris is not in france. | If paris is in france then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Paris is not in France | modus tollen | Paris is in France | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Paris is not in France | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If paris is in france then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, so it can be concluded that paris is not in france.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, which implies that the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon. | If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | No cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, which implies that the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is teething, because if the baby is crawling then the baby is teething and the baby is crawling. | If the baby is crawling then the baby is teething | The baby is crawling | The baby is teething | modus ponen | The baby is crawling | The baby is teething | The baby is not crawling | The baby is not teething | 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 teething, because if the baby is crawling then the baby is teething and the baby is crawling.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the computer is on then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, thus the computer is not on. | If the computer is on then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | The computer is not on | modus tollen | The computer is on | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | The computer is not on | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the computer is on then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, thus the computer is not on.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, which shows that a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office. | If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | Laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | modus ponen | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | 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: ```If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, which shows that a 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 anger management issues, since if sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then john davis had a history of anger management issues and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house. | If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then john davis had a history of anger management issues | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | modus ponen | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | 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, since if sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then john davis had a history of anger management issues and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, so it can be concluded that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment. | If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then john davis had a history of identity theft | John davis did not have a history of identity theft | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | John Davis had a history of identity theft | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, so it can be concluded that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sky is blue, since if the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the sky is blue and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities. | If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the sky is blue | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | The sky is blue | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | The sky is blue | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | The sky is not blue | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sky is blue, since if the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the sky is blue and the suspect had a 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 laura's prescription medications were stolen then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, thus laura's prescription medications were not stolen. | If laura's prescription medications were stolen then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it | The murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | modus tollen | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's prescription medications were stolen then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, thus laura's prescription medications were not stolen.```<|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, since if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization. | If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | modus ponen | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | 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, since if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization.```<|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 the book is a mystery novel, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, which establishes that the book is a mystery novel. | If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the book is a mystery novel | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The book is a mystery novel | modus ponen | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The book is a mystery novel | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | The book is not a mystery novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the book is a mystery novel, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, which establishes that the book is a mystery novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the bird is singing, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, thus the bird is singing. | If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the bird is singing | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The bird is singing | modus ponen | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The bird is singing | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | The bird is not singing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the bird is singing, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, thus the bird is singing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is crawling towards the cat, because if the baby is crawling towards the toy then the baby is crawling towards the cat and the baby is crawling towards the toy. | If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the baby is crawling towards the cat | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The baby is crawling towards the cat | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The baby is crawling towards the cat | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is crawling towards the cat, because if the baby is crawling towards the toy then the baby is crawling towards the cat and the baby is crawling towards the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then laura's house was booby-trapped, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, which establishes that laura's house was booby-trapped. | If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then laura's house was booby-trapped | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | Laura's house was booby-trapped | modus ponen | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | Laura's house was booby-trapped | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then laura's house was booby-trapped, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, which establishes that laura's house was booby-trapped.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, which shows that a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect. | If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | modus ponen | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match 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 laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, which shows that a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not playing with toys, as if the baby is playing with toys then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement. | If the baby is playing with toys then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | The baby is not playing with toys | modus tollen | The baby is playing with toys | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | The baby is not playing with toys | 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: ```The baby is not playing with toys, as if the baby is playing with toys then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, as if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park. | If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home | A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, as if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is eating food then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, therefore the cat is not eating food. | If the cat is eating food then laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | The cat is not eating food | modus tollen | The cat is eating food | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The cat is not eating food | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is eating food then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, therefore the cat is not eating food.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the movie is a documentary, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, so it can be concluded that the movie is a documentary. | If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the movie is a documentary | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The movie is a documentary | modus ponen | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The movie is a documentary | The store's security system had not been tampered with 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 the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the movie is a documentary, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, so it can be concluded that the movie is a documentary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is sleeping, because if the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the baby is sleeping and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems. | If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the baby is sleeping | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The baby is sleeping | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The baby is sleeping | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The baby is not sleeping | 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 sleeping, because if the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the baby is sleeping and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then the weather is mild and pleasant, and the weather is not mild and pleasant, which establishes that a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop. | If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then the weather is mild and pleasant | The weather is not mild and pleasant | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | modus tollen | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The weather is mild and pleasant | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | The weather is not mild and pleasant | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then the weather is mild and pleasant, and the weather is not mild and pleasant, which establishes that a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a 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|>
|
The baby is crawling, as if sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then the baby is crawling and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder. | If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then the baby is crawling | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | The baby is crawling | modus ponen | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | The baby is crawling | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | The baby is not crawling | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is crawling, as if sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then the baby is crawling and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, as if laura's car was found with a slashed tire then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine and laura's car was found with a slashed tire. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | modus ponen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | 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 fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, as if laura's car was found with a slashed tire then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine and laura's car was found with a slashed tire.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, which establishes that a shattered vase was not found in the hallway. | If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the baby is crawling | The baby is not crawling | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | modus tollen | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | The baby is crawling | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | 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 shattered vase was found in the hallway then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, which establishes that 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|>
|
The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, since if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the dog is barking at the stranger and the dog is not barking at the stranger. | If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the dog is barking at the stranger | The dog is not barking at the stranger | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | modus tollen | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The dog is barking at the stranger | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The dog is not barking at the stranger | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, since if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the dog is barking at the stranger and the dog is not barking at the stranger.```<|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 bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, since if emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack and no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack. | If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | modus tollen | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | 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: ```Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, since if emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack and no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, which implies that a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property. | If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | modus ponen | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, which implies that a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the arson occurred on elm street then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, and the arson occurred on elm street, thus sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death. | If the arson occurred on elm street then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death | The arson occurred on elm street | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | modus ponen | The arson occurred on Elm Street | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the arson occurred on elm street then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, and the arson occurred on elm street, thus sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's prescription medications were not stolen, since if laura's prescription medications were stolen then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape. | If laura's prescription medications were stolen then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | modus tollen | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's prescription medications were not stolen, since if laura's prescription medications were stolen then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, which establishes that no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet. | If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | No homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | modus tollen | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, which establishes that no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mail truck then the movie is a horror film, and the movie is not a horror film, thus the dog is not barking at the mail truck. | If the dog is barking at the mail truck then the movie is a horror film | The movie is not a horror film | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mail truck | The movie is a horror film | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | The movie is not a horror film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mail truck then the movie is a horror film, and the movie is not a horror film, thus the dog is not barking at the mail truck.```<|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 neighbors then the baby is crying in the stroller, and the baby is not crying in the stroller, therefore the dog is not barking at the neighbors. | If the dog is barking at the neighbors then the baby is crying in the stroller | The baby is not crying in the stroller | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the neighbors | The baby is crying in the stroller | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | The baby is not crying in the stroller | 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 neighbors then the baby is crying in the stroller, and the baby is not crying in the stroller, therefore the dog is not 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|>
|
The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim, since if the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom and no broken window was found in laura's bedroom. | If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom | No broken window was found in laura's bedroom | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | modus tollen | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim, since if the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom and no broken window was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of identity theft then the cat is black, and john davis had a history of identity theft, therefore the cat is black. | If john davis had a history of identity theft then the cat is black | John davis had a history of identity theft | The cat is black | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of identity theft | The cat is black | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | The cat is not black | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of identity theft then the cat is black, and john davis had a history of identity theft, therefore the cat is black.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, which establishes that the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | modus ponen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, which establishes that the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar 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 the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, which shows that the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime. | If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | modus tollen | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, which shows that the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar 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 weather is hot and humid, as if the cat is purring contentedly then the weather is hot and humid and the cat is purring contentedly. | If the cat is purring contentedly then the weather is hot and humid | The cat is purring contentedly | The weather is hot and humid | modus ponen | The cat is purring contentedly | The weather is hot and humid | The cat is not purring contentedly | The weather is not hot and humid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The weather is hot and humid, as if the cat is purring contentedly then the weather is hot and humid and the cat is purring contentedly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, hence the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster. | If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | modus ponen | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, hence the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, and a bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door, therefore the book is not written by a famous author. | If the book is written by a famous author then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door | A bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door | The book is not written by a famous author | modus tollen | The book is written by a famous author | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | The book is not written by a famous author | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, and a bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door, therefore the book is not written by a famous author.```<|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 the car is moving, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, which implies that the car is moving. | If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then the car is moving | John davis had a history of violating restraining orders | The car is moving | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | The car is moving | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | The car is not moving | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then the car is moving, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, which implies that the car is moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, so it can be concluded that a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene. | If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | modus ponen | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, so it can be concluded that a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of stalking other women then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, which shows that john davis did not have a history of stalking other women. | If john davis had a history of stalking other women then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | No homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of stalking other women then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, which shows that john davis did not have a history of stalking other women.```<|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 their locks due to security concerns then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, which establishes that the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns. | If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, which establishes that the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and no bloody footprint was found in the living room, which implies that emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a bloody footprint was found in the living room | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | modus tollen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and no bloody footprint was found in the living room, which implies that emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, which establishes that a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus ponen | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, which establishes that a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, as if officer brown discovered a hidden basement then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river. | If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | modus tollen | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, as if officer brown discovered a hidden basement then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, since if john davis had a history of anger management issues then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen and john davis had a history of anger management issues. | If john davis had a history of anger management issues then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John davis had a history of anger management issues | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, since if john davis had a history of anger management issues then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen and john davis had a history of anger management issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, which shows that no neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night. | If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, which shows that no neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's name is not john davis, because if the suspect's name is john davis then the sun is shining brightly overhead and the sun is not shining brightly overhead. | If the suspect's name is john davis then the sun is shining brightly overhead | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | The suspect's name is not John Davis | modus tollen | The suspect's name is John Davis | The sun is shining brightly overhead | The suspect's name is not John Davis | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's name is not john davis, because if the suspect's name is john davis then the sun is shining brightly overhead and the sun is not shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, because if the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then john davis had a history of financial problems and john davis did not have a history of financial problems. | If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then john davis had a history of financial problems | John davis did not have a history of financial problems | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | John Davis had a history of financial problems | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, because if the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then john davis had a history of financial problems and john davis did not have a history of financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, which establishes that the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions. | If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it | The murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | modus tollen | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, which establishes that the suspect's social media accounts did not contain 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 emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, so emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder. | If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | modus tollen | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, so emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and the sun is not shining brightly in the sky, 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 sun is shining brightly in the sky | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | 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 sun is shining brightly in the sky | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and the sun is not shining brightly in the sky, 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 emily had recently taken a self-defense course then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and emily had recently taken a self-defense course, hence a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement. | If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | modus ponen | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and emily had recently taken a self-defense course, hence a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, because if the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar and a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar. | If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar | A fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | modus tollen | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, because if the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar and a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, and no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, so no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry. | If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | modus tollen | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, and no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, so no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, which shows that sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house. | If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | 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 | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, which shows that sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the baby is not drinking from a bottle, which shows that john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders. | If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then the baby is drinking from a bottle | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | The baby is drinking from a bottle | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | 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 the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the baby is not drinking from a bottle, which shows 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 footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, and no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, so it can be concluded that footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store. | If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | modus tollen | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | 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 footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, and no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, so it can be concluded that footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the tree is tall, and the tree is not tall, which shows that a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard. | If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the tree is tall | The tree is not tall | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | modus tollen | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The tree is tall | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The tree is not tall | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the tree is tall, and the tree is not tall, which shows that a neighbor did not report 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 detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, therefore the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago. | If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | modus ponen | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, therefore the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago.```<|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 claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the book is a collection of short stories, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that the book is a collection of short stories. | If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the book is a collection of short stories | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The book is a collection of short stories | modus ponen | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The book is a collection of short stories | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | 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 emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the book is a collection of short stories, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that 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|>
|
John davis had a history of anger management issues, as if paris is in france then john davis had a history of anger management issues and paris is in france. | If paris is in france then john davis had a history of anger management issues | Paris is in france | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | modus ponen | Paris is in France | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | Paris is not in France | 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 paris is in france then john davis had a history of anger management issues and paris is in france.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the weather is hot and humid, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, hence the weather is hot and humid. | If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the weather is hot and humid | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | The weather is hot and humid | modus ponen | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | The weather is hot and humid | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | The weather is not hot and humid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the weather is hot and humid, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, hence the weather is hot and humid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, as if the movie is a musical film then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home and the movie is a musical film. | If the movie is a musical film then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The movie is a musical film | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | modus ponen | The movie is a musical film | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The movie is not a musical film | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, as if the movie is a musical film then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home and the movie is a musical film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, because if a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the baby is crying loudly and the baby is not crying loudly. | If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the baby is crying loudly | The baby is not crying loudly | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | modus tollen | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The baby is crying loudly | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | 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: ```No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, because if a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the baby is crying loudly and the baby is not crying loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which shows that detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse. | If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | modus tollen | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which shows that detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, hence the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery. | If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | modus ponen | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity 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 witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, hence the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the baby is playing with blocks, and the baby is not playing with blocks, so the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees. | If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the baby is playing with blocks | The baby is not playing with blocks | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | modus tollen | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The baby is playing with blocks | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | The baby is not playing with blocks | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the baby is playing with blocks, and the baby is not playing with blocks, so the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard, because if the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft. | If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | modus tollen | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard, because if the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, therefore the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | modus ponen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, therefore the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, as if sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim and sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy. | If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | modus ponen | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | 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: ```The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, as if sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim and sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, as if officer brown discovered a hidden basement then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster and officer brown discovered a hidden basement. | If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Officer brown discovered a hidden basement | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | modus ponen | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | 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: ```A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, as if officer brown discovered a hidden basement then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster and officer brown discovered a hidden basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the arson occurred on elm street then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the arson occurred on elm street, hence the victim had a restraining order against the suspect. | If the arson occurred on elm street then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The arson occurred on elm street | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | modus ponen | The arson occurred on Elm Street | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | The victim did not have a restraining order 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 arson occurred on elm street then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the arson occurred on elm street, hence the victim had a restraining order against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking at the mailman, because if a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the dog is barking at the mailman and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the dog is barking at the mailman | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The dog is barking at the mailman | modus ponen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The dog is barking at the mailman | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The dog is not barking at the mailman | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking at the mailman, because if a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the dog is barking at the mailman and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building.```<|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 personal files were deleted from her computer, because if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river. | If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, because if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which shows that detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom. | If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | modus ponen | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which shows that detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the dog is barking at the mailman, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which shows that the dog is barking at the mailman. | If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the dog is barking at the mailman | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | The dog is barking at the mailman | modus ponen | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The dog is barking at the mailman | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The dog is not barking at the mailman | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the dog is barking at the mailman, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which shows that the dog is barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the sky is blue, and the sky is not blue, so it can be concluded that john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit. | If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the sky is blue | The sky is not blue | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus tollen | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The sky is blue | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | The sky is not blue | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the sky is blue, and the sky is not blue, so it can be concluded that john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit.```<|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 mental health issues then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, thus the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery. | If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, thus the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If dogs are not fish then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed, thus dogs are fish. | If dogs are not fish then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | Dogs are fish | modus tollen | Dogs are not fish | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | Dogs are fish | 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 dogs are not fish then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed, thus dogs are fish.```<|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 car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, since if emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents and john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents. | If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | John davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | modus tollen | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, since if emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents and john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then john davis had a history of financial problems, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, so john davis had a history of financial problems. | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then john davis had a history of financial problems | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | John Davis had a history of financial problems | modus ponen | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | John Davis had a history of financial problems | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then john davis had a history of financial problems, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, so john davis had a history of financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, since if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect. | If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | modus ponen | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | 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 shaky, since if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a science fiction film then the suspect's name is john davis, and the movie is a science fiction film, hence the suspect's name is john davis. | If the movie is a science fiction film then the suspect's name is john davis | The movie is a science fiction film | The suspect's name is John Davis | modus ponen | The movie is a science fiction film | The suspect's name is John Davis | The movie is not a science fiction film | The suspect's name is not John Davis | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a science fiction film then the suspect's name is john davis, and the movie is a science fiction film, hence the suspect's name is john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and the baby is not crawling towards the cat, hence the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity. | If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the baby is crawling towards the cat | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | modus tollen | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | The baby is crawling towards the cat | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and the baby is not crawling towards the cat, hence the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, and no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, which establishes that a fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect. | If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | No threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | modus tollen | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | 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 a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, and no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, which establishes that a fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, since if sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then the book is on the nightstand and the book is not on the nightstand. | If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then the book is on the nightstand | The book is not on the nightstand | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | modus tollen | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | The book is on the nightstand | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | The book is not on the nightstand | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, since if sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then the book is on the nightstand and the book is not on the nightstand.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, hence richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions. | If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | modus ponen | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, hence richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, as if john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then laura's prescription medications were stolen and laura's prescription medications were not stolen. | If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then laura's prescription medications were stolen | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | modus tollen | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | 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: ```John davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, as if john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then laura's prescription medications were stolen and laura's prescription medications were not 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 laura's dog was found locked in a closet then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, so forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing. | If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | modus ponen | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, so forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings, because if a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder and no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder. | If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | modus tollen | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings, because if a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder and no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, therefore the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker. | If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | modus ponen | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, therefore the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a biography then laura's garage door was left open, and laura's garage door was not left open, therefore the book is not a biography. | If the book is a biography then laura's garage door was left open | Laura's garage door was not left open | The book is not a biography | modus tollen | The book is a biography | Laura's garage door was left open | The book is not a biography | Laura's garage door was not left open | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a biography then laura's garage door was left open, and laura's garage door was not left open, therefore the book is not a biography.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman, since if the dog is barking at the mailman then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | The dog is not barking at the mailman | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mailman | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The dog is not barking at the mailman | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is not barking at the mailman, since if the dog is barking at the mailman then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a 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 store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then dogs are not fish, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, which establishes that dogs are not fish. | If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then dogs are not fish | The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | Dogs are not fish | modus ponen | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | Dogs are not fish | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | Dogs are fish | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then dogs are not fish, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, which establishes that dogs are not fish.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, because if a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence. | If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | modus ponen | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, because if a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.