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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, since if a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home and a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home. | If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | modus tollen | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, since if a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home and a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, which implies that laura's personal files were deleted from her computer. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | modus ponen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | 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 a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, which implies 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 the movie is a documentary then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and the movie is a documentary, hence a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house. | If the movie is a documentary then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | The movie is a documentary | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | modus ponen | The movie is a documentary | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The movie is not a documentary | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a documentary then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and the movie is a documentary, hence a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cold and rainy then the book is on the table, and the book is not on the table, hence the weather is not cold and rainy. | If the weather is cold and rainy then the book is on the table | The book is not on the table | The weather is not cold and rainy | modus tollen | The weather is cold and rainy | The book is on the table | The weather is not cold and rainy | 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 the weather is cold and rainy then the book is on the table, and the book is not on the table, hence 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|>
|
If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the movie is a musical film, and the movie is not a musical film, which implies that the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime. | If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the movie is a musical film | The movie is not a musical film | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | modus tollen | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The movie is a musical film | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | The movie is not a musical film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the movie is a musical film, and the movie is not a musical film, which implies that the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the sky is blue, and the sky is not blue, which implies that emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery. | If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the sky is blue | The sky is not blue | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | modus tollen | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The sky is blue | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The sky is not blue | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the sky is blue, and the sky is not blue, which implies that emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of stalking other women then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and john davis had a history of stalking other women, so it can be concluded that a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby. | If john davis had a history of stalking other women then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | John davis had a history of stalking other women | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of stalking other women then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and john davis had a history of stalking other women, so it can be concluded that a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery, since if richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store and footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store. | If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | modus tollen | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery, since if richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store and footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room, because if the movie is a documentary then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and the movie is a documentary. | If the movie is a documentary then a bloody footprint was found in the living room | The movie is a documentary | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus ponen | The movie is a documentary | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | The movie is not a documentary | 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: ```A bloody footprint was found in the living room, because if the movie is a documentary then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and the movie is a documentary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, so john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs. | If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | modus tollen | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, so john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, so it can be concluded that laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | modus tollen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | 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: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, so it can be concluded that laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, hence the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster. | If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | modus ponen | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, hence the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, hence john davis had a history of violating restraining orders. | If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, hence john davis had a history of violating restraining orders.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, which implies that a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id. | If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | modus ponen | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, which implies that a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.```<|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 neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car. | If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | modus ponen | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | 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 the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, 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|>
|
Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, because if emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow. | If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | modus tollen | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, because if emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, which implies that the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus ponen | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, which implies that the suspect's fingerprints were 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 movie is a thriller then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and the movie is a thriller, which establishes that a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene. | If the movie is a thriller then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | The movie is a thriller | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | modus ponen | The movie is a thriller | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | The movie is not a thriller | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 thriller then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and the movie is a thriller, which establishes that a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 movie is a comedy-drama then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the movie is a comedy-drama, hence the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars. | If the movie is a comedy-drama then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | The movie is a comedy-drama | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | modus ponen | The movie is a comedy-drama | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | The movie is not a comedy-drama | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a comedy-drama then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the movie is a comedy-drama, hence the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the movie is a comedy, and the movie is not a comedy, which shows that the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime. | If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the movie is a comedy | The movie is not a comedy | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | modus tollen | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The movie is a comedy | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | The movie is not a comedy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the movie is a comedy, and the movie is not a comedy, which shows that the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, therefore a neighbor heard a gunshot. | If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then a neighbor heard a gunshot | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | A neighbor heard a gunshot | modus ponen | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | A neighbor heard a gunshot | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, therefore a neighbor heard a gunshot.```<|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 the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and john davis had a history of stalking other women, so it can be concluded that the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago. | If john davis had a history of stalking other women then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | John davis had a history of stalking other women | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of stalking other women then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and john davis had a history of stalking other women, so it can be concluded that the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the car then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene, hence the baby is not crying in the car. | If the baby is crying in the car then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The baby is not crying in the car | modus tollen | The baby is crying in the car | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The baby is not crying in the car | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying in the car then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene, hence the baby is not crying in the car.```<|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 scratches on his arms and neck, as if the football is round then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck and the football is round. | If the football is round then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck | The football is round | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | modus ponen | The football is round | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | The football is not round | 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: ```John davis had scratches on his arms and neck, as if the football is round then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck and the football is round.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, as if the movie is a science fiction film then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees and the movie is a science fiction film. | If the movie is a science fiction film then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The movie is a science fiction film | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | modus ponen | The movie is a science fiction film | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The movie is not a science fiction film | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, as if the movie is a science fiction film then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees and the movie is a science fiction film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, hence laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john. | If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | modus ponen | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, hence laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not on the nightstand, because if the book is on the nightstand then the baby is sleeping and the baby is not sleeping. | If the book is on the nightstand then the baby is sleeping | The baby is not sleeping | The book is not on the nightstand | modus tollen | The book is on the nightstand | The baby is sleeping | The book is not on the nightstand | The baby is not sleeping | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not on the nightstand, because if the book is on the nightstand then the baby is sleeping and the baby is not sleeping.```<|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 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, therefore no witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene. | If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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 | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | modus tollen | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | 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 a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene 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, therefore no witness reported seeing a suspicious figure 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|>
|
No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, as if a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument. | If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | modus tollen | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | 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 discovered in a dumpster nearby, as if a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, as if a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist. | If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | modus tollen | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | 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: ```A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, as if a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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|>
|
No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, because if a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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. | If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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 | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | modus tollen | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | 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: ```No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, because if a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death, therefore witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist. | If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death | Sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | modus tollen | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death, therefore 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|>
|
Dogs are not fish, as if the book is interesting then dogs are not fish and the book is interesting. | If the book is interesting then dogs are not fish | The book is interesting | Dogs are not fish | modus ponen | The book is interesting | Dogs are not fish | The book is not interesting | Dogs are fish | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Dogs are not fish, as if the book is interesting then dogs are not fish and the book is interesting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the door then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, which shows that the dog is not barking at the door. | If the dog is barking at the door then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | The dog is not barking at the door | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the door | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The dog is not barking at the door | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the door then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, which shows that the dog is not barking at the door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, since if sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house. | If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | modus ponen | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, since if sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, hence a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public. | If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | modus ponen | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, hence a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a sports film then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and the movie is a sports film, so a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace. | If the movie is a sports film then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The movie is a sports film | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | modus ponen | The movie is a sports film | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The movie is not a sports film | 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 movie is a sports film then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and the movie is a sports film, so 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|>
|
Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, as if a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine and a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car. | If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | A bloody shirt was found in john davis's car | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | modus ponen | A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, as if a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine and a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, hence a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox. | If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox | John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | modus ponen | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, hence a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the water is warm, and the water is not warm, so it can be concluded that the baby is not crawling towards the toy. | If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the water is warm | The water is not warm | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The water is warm | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | The water is not warm | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the water is warm, and the water is not warm, so it can be concluded that the baby is not crawling towards the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, so it can be concluded that the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect. | If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | modus ponen | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into 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 sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, so it can be concluded that the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's prescription medications were stolen then it is raining today, and laura's prescription medications were stolen, therefore it is raining today. | If laura's prescription medications were stolen then it is raining today | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | It is raining today | modus ponen | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | It is raining today | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | It is not raining today | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's prescription medications were stolen then it is raining today, and laura's prescription medications were stolen, therefore it is raining today.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then the car is parked on the street, and emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, so the car is parked on the street. | If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then the car is parked on the street | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | The car is parked on the street | modus ponen | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | The car is parked on the street | Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers | The car is not parked on the street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then the car is parked on the street, and emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, so the car is parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene, because if footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the book is a biography and the book is not a biography. | If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the book is a biography | The book is not a biography | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | modus tollen | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | The book is a biography | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | The book is not a biography | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene, because if footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the book is a biography and the book is not a biography.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, thus a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace. | If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | modus ponen | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | 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 a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, thus 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 victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, which establishes that the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data. | If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | modus tollen | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, which establishes that the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the phone is ringing then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, and the phone is ringing, which shows that the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery. | If the phone is ringing then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | The phone is ringing | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | modus ponen | The phone is ringing | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | The phone is not ringing | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the phone is ringing then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, and the phone is ringing, which shows that the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
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 suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions and the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions. | If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | 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 suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | 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: ```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 suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions and the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, therefore no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office. | If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | modus tollen | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, therefore 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 a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession. | If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | modus ponen | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | 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 caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily'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 sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the cat is grooming itself, and sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, which establishes that the cat is grooming itself. | If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the cat is grooming itself | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The cat is grooming itself | modus ponen | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The cat is grooming itself | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The cat is not grooming itself | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the cat is grooming itself, and sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, which establishes that the cat is grooming itself.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, so sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | John davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | modus tollen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, so sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a sports film then the movie is a science fiction film, and the movie is a sports film, which implies that the movie is a science fiction film. | If the movie is a sports film then the movie is a science fiction film | The movie is a sports film | The movie is a science fiction film | modus ponen | The movie is a sports film | The movie is a science fiction film | The movie is not a sports film | The movie is not a science fiction film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a sports film then the movie is a science fiction film, and the movie is a sports film, which implies that the movie is a science fiction film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, and the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, therefore richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account. | If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | modus tollen | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, and the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, therefore richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, hence 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 suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | 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 suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, hence 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, which implies that laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions. | If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, which implies that laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the car is moving, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, thus the car is moving. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the car is moving | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The car is moving | modus ponen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The car is moving | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The car is not moving | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the car is moving, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, thus the car is moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, so john davis had a history of stalking laura. | If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then john davis had a history of stalking laura | The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | modus ponen | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, so john davis had a history of stalking laura.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, hence surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store. | If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | John davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, hence surveillance footage does not show 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 a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, which implies that the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker. | If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | modus ponen | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | 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 manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, which implies that the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, which establishes that the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems. | If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | 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 gambling debts and financial problems then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, which establishes that the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, since if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the book is interesting and the book is not interesting. | If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the book is interesting | The book is not interesting | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | modus tollen | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | The book is interesting | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | The book is not interesting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, since if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the book is interesting and the book is not interesting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that the suspect had a history of mental health issues. | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the suspect had a history of mental health issues | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | modus ponen | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | 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 officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that 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|>
|
The baby is teething, since if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the baby is teething and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. | If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the baby is teething | The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The baby is teething | modus ponen | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The baby is teething | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The baby is not teething | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is teething, since if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the baby is teething and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the apple is red then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, and the apple is red, which shows that the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim. | If the apple is red then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The apple is red | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | modus ponen | The apple is red | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The apple is not red | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the apple is red then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, and the apple is red, which shows that the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone, as if john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker and the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker. | If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | modus tollen | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone, as if john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker and the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, and the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, hence john davis had a restraining order violation in the past. | If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | modus ponen | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | 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 the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, and the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, hence 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|>
|
A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, since if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the cat is purring contentedly and the cat is not purring contentedly. | If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the cat is purring contentedly | The cat is not purring contentedly | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | modus tollen | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | The cat is purring contentedly | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | The cat is not purring contentedly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, since if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the cat is purring contentedly and 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|>
|
The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, since if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions. | If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, since if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, as if a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home and the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home. | If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | modus tollen | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, as if a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home and 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 suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, so the sun is setting slowly in the sky. | If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, so the sun is setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, which establishes that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the baby is teething on a toy | The baby is not teething on a toy | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | modus tollen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The baby is teething on a toy | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | 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 a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, which establishes that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near 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 tree is tall then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, so it can be concluded that the tree is not tall. | If the tree is tall then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past | John davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | The tree is not tall | modus tollen | The tree is tall | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | The tree is not tall | 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 the tree is tall then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, so it can be concluded that the tree is not tall.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a gas leak was detected in the basement then the computer is on, and a gas leak was detected in the basement, thus the computer is on. | If a gas leak was detected in the basement then the computer is on | A gas leak was detected in the basement | The computer is on | modus ponen | A gas leak was detected in the basement | The computer is on | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | The computer is not on | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a gas leak was detected in the basement then the computer is on, and a gas leak was detected in the basement, thus the computer is on.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Paris is in france, as if john davis had a history of substance abuse then paris is in france and john davis had a history of substance abuse. | If john davis had a history of substance abuse then paris is in france | John davis had a history of substance abuse | Paris is in France | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | Paris is in France | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | Paris is not in France | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Paris is in france, as if john davis had a history of substance abuse then paris is in france and john davis had a history of substance abuse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had a life insurance policy then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, and laura had a life insurance policy, which shows that a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet. | If laura had a life insurance policy then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | Laura had a life insurance policy | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | modus ponen | Laura had a life insurance policy | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a life insurance policy then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, and laura had a life insurance policy, which shows that a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, as if the book is on the nightstand then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions and the book is on the nightstand. | If the book is on the nightstand then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | The book is on the nightstand | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | modus ponen | The book is on the nightstand | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | The book is not on the nightstand | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | 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 accounts showed suspicious transactions, as if the book is on the nightstand then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions and the book is on the nightstand.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is grooming itself, as if the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the cat is grooming itself and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard. | If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the cat is grooming itself | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The cat is grooming itself | modus ponen | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The cat is grooming itself | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | The cat is not grooming itself | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is grooming itself, as if the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the cat is grooming itself and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, which establishes that the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim. | If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | modus ponen | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, which establishes that the suspect had a 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|>
|
If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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, therefore no witness heard screams coming from laura's house. | If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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 | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | modus tollen | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | 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 a witness heard screams coming from laura's house 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, therefore no witness heard screams coming from laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, thus the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years. | If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | modus ponen | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, thus the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, because if john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the book is written by a famous author and the book is not written by a famous author. | If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the book is written by a famous author | The book is not written by a famous author | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | modus tollen | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | The book is written by a famous author | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, because if john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the book is written by a famous author and the book is not written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, hence a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing. | If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | modus ponen | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | 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 laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, hence a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, so it can be concluded that a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene. | If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | John davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | modus tollen | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, so it can be concluded that a stolen car was not 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|>
|
John davis had a history of financial problems, since if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then john davis had a history of financial problems and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then john davis had a history of financial problems | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John Davis had a history of financial problems | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John Davis had a history of financial problems | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a history of financial problems, since if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then john davis had a history of financial problems and the suspect's fingerprints were found 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 suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, hence 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 suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | 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 suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, hence 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|>
|
If the cat is eating food then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, thus the cat is not eating food. | If the cat is eating food then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | The cat is not eating food | modus tollen | The cat is eating food | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The cat is not eating food | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is eating food then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, thus the cat is not eating food.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, which establishes that a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace. | If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | modus ponen | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | 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 officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, which establishes 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 dog is not barking, since if the dog is barking then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data. | If the dog is barking then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | The dog is not barking | modus tollen | The dog is barking | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The dog is not barking | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is not barking, since if the dog is barking then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's passport is missing then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and laura's passport is missing, which implies that the suspect had a history of mental health issues. | If laura's passport is missing then the suspect had a history of mental health issues | Laura's passport is missing | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | modus ponen | Laura's passport is missing | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | Laura's passport is not missing | 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 laura's passport is missing then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and laura's passport is missing, which implies that 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 the sun is shining brightly in the sky then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, therefore the sun is not shining brightly in the sky. | If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then laura's dog was found locked in a closet | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, therefore the sun is not shining brightly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the book is a biography, and the book is not a biography, therefore a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair. | If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the book is a biography | The book is not a biography | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | modus tollen | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | The book is a biography | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | The book is not a biography | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the book is a biography, and the book is not a biography, therefore a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then laura's garage door was left open, and laura's garage door was not left open, hence no bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then laura's garage door was left open | Laura's garage door was not left open | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus tollen | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | Laura's garage door was left open | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | Laura's garage door was not left open | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then laura's garage door was left open, and laura's garage door was not left open, hence 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 science fiction film then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, thus the movie is not a science fiction film. | If the movie is a science fiction film then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | The movie is not a science fiction film | modus tollen | The movie is a science fiction film | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | The movie is not a science fiction film | 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 the movie is a science fiction film then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, thus the movie is not a science fiction film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, so it can be concluded that a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | No hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | modus tollen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, so it can be concluded that a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking at the door, as if the dog is barking at the mailman then the dog is barking at the door and the dog is barking at the mailman. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then the dog is barking at the door | The dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is barking at the door | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is barking at the door | The dog is not barking at the mailman | The dog is not barking at the door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking at the door, as if the dog is barking at the mailman then the dog is barking at the door and the dog is barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the movie is a thriller, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, which implies that the movie is a thriller. | If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the movie is a thriller | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | The movie is a thriller | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | The movie is a thriller | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | The movie is not a thriller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the movie is a thriller, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, which implies that the movie is a thriller.```<|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 sleeping then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, and the baby is sleeping, which shows that a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily. | If the baby is sleeping then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | The baby is sleeping | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | modus ponen | The baby is sleeping | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | The baby is not sleeping | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | 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 sleeping then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, and the baby is sleeping, which shows that a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the sun is shining brightly, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, thus the sun is shining brightly. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the sun is shining brightly | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The sun is shining brightly | modus ponen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The sun is shining brightly | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | The sun is not shining brightly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the sun is shining brightly, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, thus the sun is shining brightly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, so it can be concluded that the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery. | If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | modus ponen | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, so it can be concluded that the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.