Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street. stringlengths 74 421 | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street stringlengths 36 192 | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 788 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street stringclasses 788 values | modus ponen stringclasses 2 values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1 stringclasses 394 values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street stringclasses 394 values | True bool 1 class | text stringlengths 453 800 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, and a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily, thus richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account. | If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | modus tollen | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | 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 richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, and a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily, thus 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 laura's wedding ring is missing then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, and the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, which shows that laura's wedding ring is not missing. | If laura's wedding ring is missing then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | modus tollen | Laura's wedding ring is missing | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's wedding ring is missing then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, and the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, which shows that laura's wedding ring is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is drinking from a bottle then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, and no bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, which implies that the baby is not drinking from a bottle. | If the baby is drinking from a bottle then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | modus tollen | The baby is drinking from a bottle | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is drinking from a bottle then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, and no bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, which implies that the baby is not drinking from a bottle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the baby is laughing at the toy, and the baby is not laughing at the toy, which establishes that detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom. | If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the baby is laughing at the toy | The baby is not laughing at the toy | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | modus tollen | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The baby is laughing at the toy | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The baby is not laughing at the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the baby is laughing at the toy, and the baby is not laughing at the toy, which establishes that detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that the sun is not shining brightly. | If the sun is shining brightly then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The sun is not shining brightly | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The sun is not shining brightly | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that the sun is not 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 the dog is barking at the mailman then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, therefore the dog is not barking at the mailman. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then the movie is a comedy-drama | The movie is not a comedy-drama | The dog is not barking at the mailman | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mailman | The movie is a comedy-drama | The dog is not barking at the mailman | The movie is not a comedy-drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, therefore the dog is not barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of stalking laura then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, and surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, which implies that john davis did not have a history of stalking laura. | If john davis had a history of stalking laura then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of stalking laura then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, and surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, which implies that john davis did not have 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 a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, which implies that no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom. | If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it | The murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | modus tollen | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, which implies that no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the car is parked in the garage, and the car is not parked in the garage, which establishes that a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder. | If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the car is parked in the garage | The car is not parked in the garage | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | modus tollen | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | The car is parked in the garage | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | The car is not parked in the garage | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the car is parked in the garage, and the car is not parked in the garage, which establishes that a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, which shows that the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment. | If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | modus tollen | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | 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 victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, which shows that the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The tree is not shedding leaves, as if the tree is shedding leaves then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime and surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime. | If the tree is shedding leaves then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The tree is not shedding leaves | modus tollen | The tree is shedding leaves | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The tree is not shedding leaves | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The tree is not shedding leaves, as if the tree is shedding leaves then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime and surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, as if the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store and footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store. | If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | modus tollen | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | 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: ```The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, as if the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause 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|>
|
If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the dog is barking at the stranger, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, therefore the dog is barking at the stranger. | If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the dog is barking at the stranger | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The dog is barking at the stranger | modus ponen | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The dog is barking at the stranger | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | The dog is not barking at the stranger | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the dog is barking at the stranger, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, therefore the dog is barking at the stranger.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, which shows that laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors. | If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | modus tollen | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, which shows that laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is happy then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, therefore the dog is not happy. | If the dog is happy then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | John davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | The dog is not happy | modus tollen | The dog is happy | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | The dog is not happy | 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 the dog is happy then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, therefore the dog is not happy.```<|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 suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, thus the baby is not crawling towards the toy. | If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, thus 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's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, which shows that the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed. | If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | modus ponen | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, which shows that the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, since if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | modus ponen | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, since if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data 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 baby is drinking from a bottle then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and the baby is drinking from a bottle, which shows that a witness heard screams coming from laura's house. | If the baby is drinking from a bottle then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house | The baby is drinking from a bottle | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | modus ponen | The baby is drinking from a bottle | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | No witness heard screams coming from 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 baby is drinking from a bottle then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and the baby is drinking from a bottle, which shows that a 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 dog is barking at the door then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and the dog is barking at the door, hence emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft. | If the dog is barking at the door then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | The dog is barking at the door | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the door | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | The dog is not barking at the door | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the door then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and the dog is barking at the door, hence emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, therefore a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat. | If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits | A homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | modus tollen | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, therefore a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, which establishes that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home. | If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | modus ponen | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, which establishes that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus'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|>
|
The car is a hybrid, because if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the car is a hybrid and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns. | If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the car is a hybrid | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The car is a hybrid | modus ponen | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The car is a hybrid | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The car is not a hybrid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is a hybrid, because if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the car is a hybrid and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly overhead then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and the sun is shining brightly overhead, thus a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | The sun is shining brightly overhead | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus ponen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly overhead then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and the sun is shining brightly overhead, thus a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, because if footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store. | If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | modus ponen | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, because if footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning and footprints from muddy boots were 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 neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, because if a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the dog is barking at the door and the dog is not barking at the door. | If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the dog is barking at the door | The dog is not barking at the door | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | modus tollen | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | The dog is barking at the door | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | 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: ```A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, because if a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the dog is barking at the door and 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|>
|
If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, so it can be concluded that a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings. | If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings | Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | modus ponen | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, so it can be concluded that a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, as if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the movie is a drama and the movie is not a drama. | If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the movie is a drama | The movie is not a drama | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | modus tollen | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The movie is a drama | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | The movie is not a drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, as if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the movie is a drama and the movie is not a drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then the weather is cold and rainy, and a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, hence the weather is cold and rainy. | If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then the weather is cold and rainy | A threatening message was left on laura's answering machine | The weather is cold and rainy | modus ponen | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | The weather is cold and rainy | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | The weather is not cold and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then the weather is cold and rainy, and a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, hence the weather is 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 laura's laptop was found smashed then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, and laura's laptop was found smashed, thus the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror. | If laura's laptop was found smashed then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | modus ponen | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | 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 laptop was found smashed then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, and laura's laptop was found smashed, thus the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, which establishes that laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door. | If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | John davis had scratches on his arms and neck | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | modus ponen | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, which establishes that laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, so it can be concluded that the suspect's fingerprints were not 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 surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah'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 suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, so it can be concluded that the suspect's fingerprints were not 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 weather is mild and pleasant then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, hence the weather is not mild and pleasant. | If the weather is mild and pleasant then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The weather is not mild and pleasant | modus tollen | The weather is mild and pleasant | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The weather is not mild and pleasant | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is mild and pleasant then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, hence the weather is not mild and pleasant.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which implies that the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain. | If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the book is written by a famous author | The book is not written by a famous author | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | modus tollen | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The book is written by a famous author | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which implies that the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain.```<|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 laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and the tree is tall, hence laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone. | If the tree is tall then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The tree is tall | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | modus ponen | The tree is tall | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The tree is not tall | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is tall then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and the tree is tall, hence laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, since if a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene. | If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | modus tollen | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, since if a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, so a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings. | If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | modus tollen | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, so a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, which establishes that emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky. | If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | A gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | modus tollen | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | 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 emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, which establishes that emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, which shows that a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster. | If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | modus ponen | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | 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 bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, which shows that a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not drinking from a bottle, since if the baby is drinking from a bottle then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe and no coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe. | If the baby is drinking from a bottle then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | No coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | modus tollen | The baby is drinking from a bottle | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not drinking from a bottle, since if the baby is drinking from a bottle then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe and no coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not playing with blocks, since if the baby is playing with blocks then the sun is shining brightly and the sun is not shining brightly. | If the baby is playing with blocks then the sun is shining brightly | The sun is not shining brightly | The baby is not playing with blocks | modus tollen | The baby is playing with blocks | The sun is shining brightly | The baby is not playing with blocks | 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: ```The baby is not playing with blocks, since if the baby is playing with blocks then the sun is shining brightly and the sun is not 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|>
|
A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, because if the dog is barking at the television then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment and the dog is barking at the television. | If the dog is barking at the television then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | The dog is barking at the television | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the television | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | The dog is not barking at the television | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, because if the dog is barking at the television then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment and the dog is barking at the television.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not barking at the squirrel, since if the dog is barking at the squirrel then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo and a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo. | If the dog is barking at the squirrel then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo | A homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the squirrel | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is not barking at the squirrel, since if the dog is barking at the squirrel then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo and a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then the cat is grooming itself, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, so the cat is grooming itself. | If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then the cat is grooming itself | Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | The cat is grooming itself | modus ponen | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | The cat is grooming itself | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's 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: ```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then the cat is grooming itself, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, so 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 the car is parked in the garage then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, therefore the car is not parked in the garage. | If the car is parked in the garage then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | John davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe | The car is not parked in the garage | modus tollen | The car is parked in the garage | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | The car is not parked in the garage | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is parked in the garage then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, therefore the car is not parked in the garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, hence a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake. | If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | modus ponen | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, hence a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.```<|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 setting slowly then dogs are not fish, and the sun is setting slowly, which establishes that dogs are not fish. | If the sun is setting slowly then dogs are not fish | The sun is setting slowly | Dogs are not fish | modus ponen | The sun is setting slowly | Dogs are not fish | The sun is not setting slowly | Dogs are fish | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly then dogs are not fish, and the sun is setting slowly, which establishes that dogs are not fish.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the television then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, therefore the dog is not barking at the television. | If the dog is barking at the television then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The dog is not barking at the television | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the television | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The dog is not barking at the television | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the television then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, therefore the dog is not barking at the television.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cold and snowy then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and the weather is cold and snowy, hence emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle. | If the weather is cold and snowy then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The weather is cold and snowy | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | modus ponen | The weather is cold and snowy | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The weather is not cold and snowy | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and snowy then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and the weather is cold and snowy, hence emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.```<|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 setting then the apple is red, and the sun is setting, which establishes that the apple is red. | If the sun is setting then the apple is red | The sun is setting | The apple is red | modus ponen | The sun is setting | The apple is red | The sun is not setting | The apple is not red | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting then the apple is red, and the sun is setting, which establishes that the apple is red.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, so it can be concluded that laura had a secret storage room in her house. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then laura had a secret storage room in her house | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | modus ponen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, so it can be concluded that laura had a secret storage room in 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 richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, so it can be concluded that a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder. | If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, so it can be concluded that a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the car then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and the baby is crying in the car, hence a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene. | If the baby is crying in the car then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The baby is crying in the car | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | modus ponen | The baby is crying in the car | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The baby is not crying in the car | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying in the car then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and the baby is crying in the car, hence a 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|>
|
If the football is round then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, therefore the football is not round. | If the football is round then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The football is not round | modus tollen | The football is round | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The football is not round | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their 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 football is round then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, therefore the football is not round.```<|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 recorded argument with laura on his phone then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone. | If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | 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 | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | 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 recorded argument with laura on his phone then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's dog was found locked in a closet, as if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then laura's dog was found locked in a closet and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal. | If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then laura's dog was found locked in a closet | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | modus ponen | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | 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: ```Laura's dog was found locked in a closet, as if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then laura's dog was found locked in a closet and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the cat is sleeping in the sun, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, therefore the cat is sleeping in the sun. | If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the cat is sleeping in the sun | A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | The cat is sleeping in the sun | modus ponen | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | The cat is sleeping in the sun | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the cat is sleeping in the sun, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, therefore the cat is sleeping in the sun.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, as if a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | modus ponen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, as if a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit, so it can be concluded 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 john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | John davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | 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 | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | 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 john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit, so it can be concluded 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 cat is purring contentedly then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, and the cat is purring contentedly, which establishes that john davis had a history of psychiatric issues. | If the cat is purring contentedly then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The cat is purring contentedly | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | modus ponen | The cat is purring contentedly | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The cat is not purring contentedly | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring contentedly then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, and the cat is purring contentedly, which establishes that john davis had a history of psychiatric issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, since if the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees. | If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | modus ponen | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | 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 sleeping soundly on the bed, since if the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, thus a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen. | If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | modus ponen | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, thus a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, which establishes that no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | modus tollen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, which establishes that no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's prescription medications were stolen then sally is older than john, and laura's prescription medications were stolen, which shows that sally is older than john. | If laura's prescription medications were stolen then sally is older than john | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | Sally is older than John | modus ponen | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | Sally is older than John | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | Sally is not older than John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's prescription medications were stolen then sally is older than john, and laura's prescription medications were stolen, which shows that sally is older than john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not purring, because if the cat is purring then the sun is setting slowly in the sky and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky. | If the cat is purring then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | The cat is not purring | modus tollen | The cat is purring | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The cat is not purring | 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: ```The cat is not purring, because if the cat is purring then the sun is setting slowly in the sky and the sun is not 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 the stolen van was registered in a fake name then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, thus a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house. | If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | modus ponen | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | 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 the stolen van was registered in a fake name then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, thus a hidden cellar was discovered under 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|>
|
Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, since if the dog is barking at the television then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account and the dog is barking at the television. | If the dog is barking at the television then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | The dog is barking at the television | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the television | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | The dog is not barking at the television | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, since if the dog is barking at the television then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account and the dog is barking at the television.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then john davis had bruises on his arms, and the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, which establishes that john davis had bruises on his arms. | If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then john davis had bruises on his arms | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | John Davis had bruises on his arms | modus ponen | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | John Davis had bruises on his arms | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then john davis had bruises on his arms, and the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, which establishes that john davis had bruises on his arms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, so fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop. | If laura's social media accounts were hacked then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | modus ponen | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's social media accounts were hacked then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, so fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the nightstand then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van, which establishes that the book is not on the nightstand. | If the book is on the nightstand then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | The book is not on the nightstand | modus tollen | The book is on the nightstand | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | The book is not on the nightstand | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the nightstand then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van, which establishes that the book is not on the nightstand.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and the baby is teething, so it can be concluded that a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder. | If the baby is teething then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The baby is teething | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | modus ponen | The baby is teething | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The baby is not teething | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and the baby is teething, so it can be concluded that a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, since if the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft and the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted. | If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | modus ponen | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, since if the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft and the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then laura's passport is missing, and laura's passport is not missing, which establishes that the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user. | If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then laura's passport is missing | Laura's passport is not missing | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | modus tollen | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | Laura's passport is missing | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | Laura's passport is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then laura's passport is missing, and laura's passport is not missing, which establishes that the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, because if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the cat is purring contentedly and the cat is not purring contentedly. | If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the cat is purring contentedly | The cat is not purring contentedly | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus tollen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The cat is purring contentedly | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | 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: ```No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, because if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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|>
|
If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the cat is sleeping soundly, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, therefore the cat is sleeping soundly. | If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the cat is sleeping soundly | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The cat is sleeping soundly | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The cat is sleeping soundly | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The cat is not sleeping soundly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the cat is sleeping soundly, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, therefore the cat is sleeping soundly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If it is raining today then laura's social media accounts were hacked, and laura's social media accounts were not hacked, so it can be concluded that it is not raining today. | If it is raining today then laura's social media accounts were hacked | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | It is not raining today | modus tollen | It is raining today | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | It is not raining today | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If it is raining today then laura's social media accounts were hacked, and laura's social media accounts were not hacked, so it can be concluded that it is not 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 a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, hence a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox. | If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it | The murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it | 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 murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, hence a handwritten note with threats was not 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 dog is barking at the stranger then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, which shows that the dog is not barking at the stranger. | If the dog is barking at the stranger then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | The dog is not barking at the stranger | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the stranger | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The dog is not barking at the stranger | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the stranger then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, which shows that the dog is not barking at the stranger.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings, because if a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then laura's phone records show calls to 911 and laura's phone records do not show calls to 911. | If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then laura's phone records show calls to 911 | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | modus tollen | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings, because if a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then laura's phone records show calls to 911 and laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a biography then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, so it can be concluded that the book is not a biography. | If the book is a biography then john davis had a history of identity theft | John davis did not have a history of identity theft | The book is not a biography | modus tollen | The book is a biography | John Davis had a history of identity theft | The book is not a biography | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a biography then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, so it can be concluded that 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 laura had a secret storage room in her house then the book is a biography, and laura had a secret storage room in her house, so the book is a biography. | If laura had a secret storage room in her house then the book is a biography | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | The book is a biography | modus ponen | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | The book is a biography | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | 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 laura had a secret storage room in her house then the book is a biography, and laura had a secret storage room in her house, so the book is 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 laura had a secret storage room in her house then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, and laura had a secret storage room in her house, so it can be concluded that john davis had a history of violating restraining orders. | If laura had a secret storage room in her house then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | modus ponen | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | 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 laura had a secret storage room in her house then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, and laura had a secret storage room in her house, so it can be concluded that 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 the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, which establishes that the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause. | If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then john davis had a history of stalking laura | John davis did not have a history of stalking laura | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | modus tollen | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | 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 victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, which establishes that the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, as if surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery 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. | If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery 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 | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | 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: ```Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, as if surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, since if a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk. | If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | modus tollen | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, since if a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, which implies that the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder. | If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | modus tollen | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, which implies that the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, which establishes that the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user. | If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | 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 surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, which establishes that the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the movie is a sports film, and the movie is not a sports film, so no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder. | If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the movie is a sports film | The movie is not a sports film | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | modus tollen | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The movie is a sports film | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The movie is not a sports film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the movie is a sports film, and the movie is not a sports film, so no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, which establishes that a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home. | If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home | A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | modus ponen | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, which establishes that a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, which establishes that sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house. | If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then john davis had a history of stalking laura | John davis did not have a history of stalking laura | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | modus tollen | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | 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 sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, which establishes that sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is black then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, therefore the cat is not black. | If the cat is black then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | The cat is not black | modus tollen | The cat is black | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | The cat is not black | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | 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 black then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, therefore the cat is not black.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, so a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | modus ponen | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, so a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sally is older than john then laura's mail was tampered with, and laura's mail was not tampered with, hence sally is not older than john. | If sally is older than john then laura's mail was tampered with | Laura's mail was not tampered with | Sally is not older than John | modus tollen | Sally is older than John | Laura's mail was tampered with | Sally is not older than John | Laura's mail was not tampered with | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sally is older than john then laura's mail was tampered with, and laura's mail was not tampered with, hence sally is not older than john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, which implies that surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house. | If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | modus ponen | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah'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 victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, which implies that surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah'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|>
|
The dog is not barking at the squirrel, as if the dog is barking at the squirrel then the sun is shining through the window and the sun is not shining through the window. | If the dog is barking at the squirrel then the sun is shining through the window | The sun is not shining through the window | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the squirrel | The sun is shining through the window | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | The sun is not shining through the window | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is not barking at the squirrel, as if the dog is barking at the squirrel then the sun is shining through the window and the sun is not shining through the window.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair, as if a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery and emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery. | If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | 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 | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair, as if a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery and 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|>
|
The victim's name is not laura martinez, as if the victim's name is laura martinez then the car is parked on the street and the car is not parked on the street. | If the victim's name is laura martinez then the car is parked on the street | The car is not parked on the street | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | modus tollen | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | The car is parked on the street | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | 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: ```The victim's name is not laura martinez, as if the victim's name is laura martinez then the car is parked on the street and the car is not 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|>
|
Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers, since if emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then the cat is purring contentedly and the cat is not purring contentedly. | If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then the cat is purring contentedly | The cat is not purring contentedly | Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers | modus tollen | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | The cat is purring contentedly | Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers | 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: ```Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers, since if emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers 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|>
|
If the baby is crawling then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and john davis did not have a history of substance abuse, which implies that the baby is not crawling. | If the baby is crawling then john davis had a history of substance abuse | John davis did not have a history of substance abuse | The baby is not crawling | modus tollen | The baby is crawling | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | The baby is not crawling | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and john davis did not have a history of substance abuse, which implies that the baby is not crawling.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the arson occurred on elm street then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, which shows that the arson did not occur on elm street. | If the arson occurred on elm street 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 | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | modus tollen | The arson occurred on Elm Street | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the arson occurred on elm street then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, which shows that the arson did not occur on elm street.```<|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.