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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Laura had a secret storage room in her house, because if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura had a secret storage room in her house and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement. | If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura had a secret storage room in her house | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | modus ponen | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura had a secret storage room in her house, because if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura had a secret storage room in her house and 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|>
|
If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the apple is red, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, thus the apple is red. | If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the apple is red | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The apple is red | modus ponen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The apple is red | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | The apple is not red | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the apple is red, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, thus the apple is red.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the baby is crying, and a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, which implies that the baby is crying. | If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the baby is crying | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The baby is crying | modus ponen | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The baby is crying | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The baby is not crying | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the baby is crying, and a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, which implies that the baby is crying.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, and the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim, which implies that laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization. | If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | modus tollen | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, and the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim, which implies that laura's medical records were not accessed 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|>
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, as if water is h2o then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment and water is h2o. | If water is h2o then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | Water is h2o | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | modus ponen | Water is H2O | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | Water is not H2O | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, as if water is h2o then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment and water is h2o.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cold and rainy then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems, which shows that the weather is not cold and rainy. | If the weather is cold and rainy then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The weather is not cold and rainy | modus tollen | The weather is cold and rainy | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The weather is not cold and rainy | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and 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 the weather is cold and rainy then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems, which shows that the weather is not cold and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, since if the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and no bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a bloody footprint was found in the living room | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | modus tollen | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | 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: ```The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, since if the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and no bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|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 alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, because if the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the computer is on and the computer is not on. | If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the computer is on | The computer is not on | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | modus tollen | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The computer is on | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | The computer is not on | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, because if the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the computer is on and 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 sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, which establishes that richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine. | If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | modus ponen | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | 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: ```If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, which establishes that richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine.```<|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 bank account had a recent large withdrawal, as if the dog is happy then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal and the dog is happy. | If the dog is happy then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | The dog is happy | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | modus ponen | The dog is happy | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | The dog is not happy | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, as if the dog is happy then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal and the dog is happy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, since if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene. | If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | modus ponen | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, since if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, and emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, so the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, and emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, so the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the car then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the baby is crying in the car, therefore the suspect had a history of mental health issues. | If the baby is crying in the car then the suspect had a history of mental health issues | The baby is crying in the car | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | modus ponen | The baby is crying in the car | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | The baby is not crying in the car | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying in the car then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the baby is crying in the car, therefore the suspect had a history of mental health 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 laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, hence laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop. | If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | modus tollen | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, hence laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, so it can be concluded that the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country. | If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | modus ponen | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, so it can be concluded that the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the baby is crying in the stroller, and the baby is not crying in the stroller, thus the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home. | If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the baby is crying in the stroller | The baby is not crying in the stroller | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | modus tollen | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The baby is crying in the stroller | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | 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 victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the baby is crying in the stroller, and the baby is not crying in the stroller, thus the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring contentedly then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, and a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, which implies that the cat is not purring contentedly. | If the cat is purring contentedly then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | The cat is not purring contentedly | modus tollen | The cat is purring contentedly | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | The cat is not purring contentedly | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring contentedly then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, and a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, which implies that the cat is not 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 sally is older than john then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, and sally is older than john, therefore john davis had a restraining order violation in the past. | If sally is older than john then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past | Sally is older than john | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | modus ponen | Sally is older than John | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | Sally is not older than John | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sally is older than john then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, and sally is older than john, therefore john davis had a restraining order violation in the past.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and laura's prescription medications were not stolen, hence the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then laura's prescription medications were stolen | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and laura's prescription medications were not stolen, hence the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the toy then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and the baby is crawling towards the toy, hence a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace. | If the baby is crawling towards the toy then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The baby is crawling towards the toy | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the toy | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the toy then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and the baby is crawling towards the toy, hence a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is nice then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, which establishes that the weather is not nice. | If the weather is nice then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The weather is not nice | modus tollen | The weather is nice | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The weather is not nice | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is nice then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, which establishes that the weather is not nice.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then the car is a sedan, and the victim's name is sarah mitchell, which shows that the car is a sedan. | If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then the car is a sedan | The victim's name is sarah mitchell | The car is a sedan | modus ponen | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | The car is a sedan | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | The car is not a sedan | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then the car is a sedan, and the victim's name is sarah mitchell, which shows that the car is a sedan.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which implies that john davis had scratches on his arms and neck. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which implies that john davis had scratches on his arms and neck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, thus a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | 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 richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, thus a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a sports film then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, so it can be concluded that the movie is not a sports film. | If the movie is a sports film then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits | A homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | The movie is not a sports film | modus tollen | The movie is a sports film | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | The movie is not a sports film | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | 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 sports film then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, so it can be concluded that the movie is not a sports film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 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 implies that laura's phone records do not show calls to 911. | If laura's phone records show calls to 911 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 | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | modus tollen | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | 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 laura's phone records show calls to 911 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 implies that laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's wedding ring is missing then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and laura's wedding ring is missing, which establishes that laura's personal files were deleted from her computer. | If laura's wedding ring is missing then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | Laura's wedding ring is missing | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | modus ponen | Laura's wedding ring is missing | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | 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: ```If laura's wedding ring is missing then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and laura's wedding ring is missing, which establishes that laura's personal files were deleted from her computer.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, so it can be concluded that forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing. | If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | modus tollen | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, so it can be concluded that forensic analysis did not reveal 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|>
|
If laura's mail was tampered with then john davis had bruises on his arms, and john davis did not have bruises on his arms, so laura's mail was not tampered with. | If laura's mail was tampered with then john davis had bruises on his arms | John davis did not have bruises on his arms | Laura's mail was not tampered with | modus tollen | Laura's mail was tampered with | John Davis had bruises on his arms | Laura's mail was not tampered with | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's mail was tampered with then john davis had bruises on his arms, and john davis did not have bruises on his arms, so laura's mail was not tampered with.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring loudly then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the cat is purring loudly, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene. | If the cat is purring loudly then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The cat is purring loudly | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | modus ponen | The cat is purring loudly | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The cat is not purring loudly | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring loudly then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and the cat is purring loudly, so it can be concluded that officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, since if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | modus ponen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, since if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cloudy and rainy then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, and richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery, which implies that the weather is not cloudy and rainy. | If the weather is cloudy and rainy then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery | Richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | modus tollen | The weather is cloudy and rainy | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cloudy and rainy then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, and richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery, which implies that the weather is not cloudy and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, which establishes that the dog is barking at the squirrel. | If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the dog is barking at the squirrel | The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | The dog is barking at the squirrel | modus ponen | The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | The dog is barking at the squirrel | The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, which establishes that the dog is barking at the squirrel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, which establishes that emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder. | If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | modus ponen | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | 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 the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, which establishes that emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of stalking other women then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, hence john davis did not have a history of stalking other women. | If john davis had a history of stalking other women then emily had recently taken a self-defense course | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of stalking other women then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, hence 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 suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the tree is tall, and the tree is not tall, which establishes that the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead. | If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the tree is tall | The tree is not tall | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | modus tollen | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The tree is tall | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | 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 the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the tree is tall, and the tree is not tall, which establishes that the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, which implies that surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store. | If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | modus ponen | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, which implies that surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, which implies that detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard. | If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, which implies that detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which implies that a bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then a bloody footprint was found in the living room | Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus ponen | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | 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 co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which implies that a bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not crawling towards the cat, as if the baby is crawling towards the cat then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene and no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If the baby is crawling towards the cat then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the cat | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not crawling towards the cat, as if the baby is crawling towards the cat then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene and no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is laughing at the toy then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and the baby is laughing at the toy, which establishes that a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone. | If the baby is laughing at the toy then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The baby is laughing at the toy | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | modus ponen | The baby is laughing at the toy | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The baby is not laughing at the toy | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is laughing at the toy then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and the baby is laughing at the toy, which establishes that a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then the sun is shining, and the sun is not shining, which shows that laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident. | If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then the sun is shining | The sun is not shining | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | modus tollen | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | The sun is shining | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | The sun is not shining | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then the sun is shining, and the sun is not shining, which shows that laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, as if the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then sally is older than john and sally is not older than john. | If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then sally is older than john | Sally is not older than john | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | modus tollen | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | Sally is older than John | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | Sally is not older than John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, as if the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then sally is older than john and sally is not older than john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the weather is hot and humid, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, which implies that the weather is hot and humid. | If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the weather is hot and humid | A gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | The weather is hot and humid | modus ponen | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | The weather is hot and humid | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | 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 gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the weather is hot and humid, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, which implies that the weather is hot and humid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cold and snowy then water is h2o, and water is not h2o, thus the weather is not cold and snowy. | If the weather is cold and snowy then water is h2o | Water is not h2o | The weather is not cold and snowy | modus tollen | The weather is cold and snowy | Water is H2O | The weather is not cold and snowy | Water is not H2O | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and snowy then water is h2o, and water is not h2o, thus the weather is not cold and snowy.```<|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 a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, so it can be concluded that a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace. | If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, so it can be concluded that a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace.```<|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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, as if the cat is black then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact and the cat is black. | If the cat is black then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | The cat is black | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | modus ponen | The cat is black | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | The cat is not black | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | 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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, as if the cat is black then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact and 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 footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then laura's phone records show calls to 911, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, which shows that laura's phone records show calls to 911. | If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then laura's phone records show calls to 911 | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | modus ponen | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | 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 laura's phone records show calls to 911, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, which shows that laura's phone records show calls to 911.```<|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 jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, which implies that a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene. | If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | modus tollen | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, which implies that a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a hybrid then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, which implies that the car is not a hybrid. | If the car is a hybrid then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | Detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | The car is not a hybrid | modus tollen | The car is a hybrid | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | The car is not a hybrid | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a hybrid then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, which implies that the car is not a hybrid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then cats are mammals, and cats are not mammals, so it can be concluded that no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office. | If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then cats are mammals | Cats are not mammals | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | modus tollen | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | Cats are mammals | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | Cats are not mammals | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then cats are mammals, and cats are not mammals, so it can be concluded that no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, so it can be concluded that the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim. | If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, so it can be concluded that the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, since if a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past. | If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past | John davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | modus tollen | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, since if a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past.```<|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 sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, hence sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder. | If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | modus ponen | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, hence sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a sports film then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and the movie is a sports film, hence john davis had a history of stalking other women. | If the movie is a sports film then john davis had a history of stalking other women | The movie is a sports film | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | modus ponen | The movie is a sports film | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | The movie is not a sports film | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a sports film then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and the movie is a sports film, hence john davis had 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 richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, so it can be concluded that the cat is sleeping on the couch. | If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the cat is sleeping on the couch | Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | The cat is sleeping on the couch | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | The cat is sleeping on the couch | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, so it can be concluded that the cat is sleeping on the couch.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene 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 implies that the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. | If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then 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 | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | modus tollen | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | 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 the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene 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 implies that the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, which implies that surveillance footage does not show 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 officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | Officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, which implies that 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|>
|
If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car. | If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | modus ponen | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the cat is sleeping in the sun, and the cat is not sleeping in the sun, which shows that laura had not recently changed her social media passwords. | If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the cat is sleeping in the sun | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | modus tollen | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The cat is sleeping in the sun | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | 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 recently changed her social media passwords then the cat is sleeping in the sun, and the cat is not sleeping in the sun, which shows that laura had not recently changed her social media passwords.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, hence laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident. | If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | modus ponen | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, hence laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, and detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, which shows that a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession. | If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | Detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | modus tollen | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, and detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, which shows that a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, which establishes that the victim had a restraining order against the suspect. | If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | modus ponen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | 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 victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, which establishes that 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|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, therefore a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene. | If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, therefore a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, thus a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned. | If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, thus a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, therefore a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | modus ponen | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, therefore a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, which establishes that a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat. | If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | modus tollen | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, which establishes that a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, which establishes that the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions. | If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, which establishes that the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, and the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain, which establishes that a broken chair was not found in the kitchen. | If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | modus tollen | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, and the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain, which establishes that a broken chair was not found in the kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, so the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, so the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking loudly then the baby is crying loudly, and the baby is not crying loudly, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking loudly. | If the dog is barking loudly then the baby is crying loudly | The baby is not crying loudly | The dog is not barking loudly | modus tollen | The dog is barking loudly | The baby is crying loudly | The dog is not barking loudly | The baby is not crying loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking loudly then the baby is crying loudly, and the baby is not crying loudly, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, as if a bloody footprint was found in the living room then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs and a bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | modus ponen | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, as if a bloody footprint was found in the living room then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs and a bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|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 friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the baby is teething on a toy, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, therefore the baby is teething on a toy. | If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the baby is teething on a toy | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The baby is teething on a toy | modus ponen | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The baby is teething on a toy | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | The baby is not teething on a toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the baby is teething on a toy, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, therefore the baby is teething on a toy.```<|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 claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, because if witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist. | If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | modus ponen | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, because if witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the book is a collection of short stories, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, which establishes that the book is a collection of short stories. | If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the book is a collection of short stories | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The book is a collection of short stories | modus ponen | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The book is a collection of short stories | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The book is not a collection of short stories | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the book is a collection of short stories, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, which establishes 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|>
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, since if the baby is playing with toys then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder and the baby is playing with toys. | If the baby is playing with toys then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The baby is playing with toys | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | modus ponen | The baby is playing with toys | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The baby is not playing with toys | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day 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 claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, since if the baby is playing with toys then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder and the baby is playing with toys.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying loudly then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and the baby is crying loudly, which establishes that emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask. | If the baby is crying loudly then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The baby is crying loudly | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | modus ponen | The baby is crying loudly | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The baby is not crying loudly | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying loudly then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and the baby is crying loudly, which establishes that emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, because if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene. | If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits | A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | modus ponen | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, because if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the bird is singing then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, and the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, which implies that the bird is not singing. | If the bird is singing then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | The bird is not singing | modus tollen | The bird is singing | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | The bird is not singing | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the bird is singing then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, and the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, which implies that the bird is not singing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, thus a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene. | If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | 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 the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, thus a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then the book is on the bestseller list, and the book is not on the bestseller list, hence no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard. | If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then the book is on the bestseller list | The book is not on the bestseller list | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | modus tollen | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | The book is on the bestseller list | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | The book is not on the bestseller list | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then the book is on the bestseller list, and the book is not on the bestseller list, hence no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then the book is on the table, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, thus the book is on the table. | If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then the book is on the table | A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | The book is on the table | modus ponen | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | The book is on the table | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | The book is not on the table | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then the book is on the table, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, thus the book is on the table.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, so laura's social media accounts were not hacked. | If laura's social media accounts were hacked then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles | Richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | modus tollen | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's social media accounts were hacked then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, so laura's social media accounts were not hacked.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, because if a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist. | If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | modus tollen | A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, because if a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
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 emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder and emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder. | If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | 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 | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```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 emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder and emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime. | If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | modus ponen | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, so officer brown did not discover a hidden basement. | If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | modus tollen | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, so officer brown did not discover a hidden basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, therefore the baby is not crawling. | If the baby is crawling then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | The baby is not crawling | modus tollen | The baby is crawling | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The baby is not crawling | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, therefore the baby is not crawling.```<|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 cold and snowy, since if laura's dog was found locked in a closet then the weather is cold and snowy and laura's dog was found locked in a closet. | If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then the weather is cold and snowy | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | The weather is cold and snowy | modus ponen | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | The weather is cold and snowy | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | The weather is not cold and snowy | 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 cold and snowy, since if laura's dog was found locked in a closet then the weather is cold and snowy and laura's dog was found locked in a closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, since if a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and no bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a bloody footprint was found in the living room | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | modus tollen | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | 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: ```No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, since if a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and no bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a drama then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene, thus the movie is not a drama. | If the movie is a drama then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The movie is not a drama | modus tollen | The movie is a drama | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The movie is not a drama | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a drama then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene, thus the movie is not a drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The weather is cloudy and rainy, because if the car is parked in the garage then the weather is cloudy and rainy and the car is parked in the garage. | If the car is parked in the garage then the weather is cloudy and rainy | The car is parked in the garage | The weather is cloudy and rainy | modus ponen | The car is parked in the garage | The weather is cloudy and rainy | The car is not parked in the garage | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The weather is cloudy and rainy, because if the car is parked in the garage then the weather is cloudy and rainy and the car is parked in the garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the dog is happy, and the dog is not happy, which shows that no bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the dog is happy | The dog is not happy | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus tollen | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | The dog is happy | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | The dog is not happy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the dog is happy, and the dog is not happy, which shows that no bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|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 the suspect's name is john davis, and the suspect's name is not john davis, which establishes that no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone. | If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the suspect's name is john davis | The suspect's name is not john davis | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | modus tollen | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | The suspect's name is John Davis | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | 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 a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the suspect's name is john davis, and the suspect's name is not john davis, which establishes that no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, because if a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the victim's name is laura martinez and the victim's name is not laura martinez. | If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the victim's name is laura martinez | The victim's name is not laura martinez | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, because if a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the victim's name is laura martinez and the victim's name is not laura martinez.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and laura's jewelry box was not emptied, thus the baby is not teething. | If the baby is teething then laura's jewelry box was emptied | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | The baby is not teething | modus tollen | The baby is teething | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | The baby is not teething | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and laura's jewelry box was not emptied, thus the baby is not teething.```<|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 envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, which shows that a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder. | If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | modus ponen | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, which shows that a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, since if a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information and the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information. | If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, since if a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information and the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the table then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer, hence the book is not on the table. | If the book is on the table then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | The book is not on the table | modus tollen | The book is on the table | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | The book is not on the table | 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: ```If the book is on the table then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer, hence the book is not on the table.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the arson occurred on elm street then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and the arson occurred on elm street, hence detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects. | If the arson occurred on elm street then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | The arson occurred on elm street | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | modus ponen | The arson occurred on Elm Street | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the arson occurred on elm street then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and the arson occurred on elm street, hence detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.