Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street. stringlengths 74 421 | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street stringlengths 36 192 | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 788 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street stringclasses 788 values | modus ponen stringclasses 2 values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1 stringclasses 394 values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street stringclasses 394 values | True bool 1 class | text stringlengths 453 800 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is not barking at the mail truck, which implies that emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder. | If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then the dog is barking at the mail truck | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | modus tollen | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | The dog is barking at the mail truck | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | 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 neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is not barking at the mail truck, which implies that emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, therefore the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago. | If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | modus ponen | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, therefore the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with a toy car then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone, which implies that the baby is not playing with a toy car. | If the baby is playing with a toy car then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | The baby is not playing with a toy car | modus tollen | The baby is playing with a toy car | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The baby is not playing with a toy car | 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 baby is playing with a toy car then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone, which implies that the baby is not playing with a toy car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is grooming itself then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and the cat is grooming itself, thus the dog is barking at the squirrel. | If the cat is grooming itself then the dog is barking at the squirrel | The cat is grooming itself | The dog is barking at the squirrel | modus ponen | The cat is grooming itself | The dog is barking at the squirrel | The cat is not grooming itself | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is grooming itself then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and the cat is grooming itself, thus the dog is barking at the squirrel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not exciting, since if the movie is exciting then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement and detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement. | If the movie is exciting then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | Detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | The movie is not exciting | modus tollen | The movie is exciting | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | The movie is not exciting | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not exciting, since if the movie is exciting then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement and detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement.```<|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 mail was not tampered with, because if laura's mail was tampered with then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man and no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If laura's mail was tampered with then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | No homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | Laura's mail was not tampered with | modus tollen | Laura's mail was tampered with | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | Laura's mail was not tampered with | 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: ```Laura's mail was not tampered with, because if laura's mail was tampered with then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man and no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|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 substance abuse then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and john davis had a history of substance abuse, therefore the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment. | If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | John davis had a history of substance abuse | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and john davis had a history of substance abuse, therefore the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and the sun is shining brightly, so it can be concluded that a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned. | If the sun is shining brightly then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The sun is shining brightly | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | modus ponen | The sun is shining brightly | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The sun is not shining brightly | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and the sun is shining brightly, so it can be concluded that a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, which implies that a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house. | If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | modus ponen | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, which implies that a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then water is h2o, and water is not h2o, thus the cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror. | If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then water is h2o | Water is not h2o | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | modus tollen | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | Water is H2O | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | Water is not H2O | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then water is h2o, and water is not h2o, thus the cat is not 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 was caught on camera buying duct tape then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, and john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, hence a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | John davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | modus ponen | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, and john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, hence a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's jewelry box was emptied then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, thus laura's jewelry box was not emptied. | If laura's jewelry box was emptied then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | modus tollen | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's jewelry box was emptied then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, thus laura's jewelry box was not emptied.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a comedy, because if the movie is a comedy then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary and the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary. | If the movie is a comedy then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The movie is not a comedy | modus tollen | The movie is a comedy | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The movie is not a comedy | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a comedy, because if the movie is a comedy then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary and the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's passport is missing then the movie is a thriller, and laura's passport is missing, therefore the movie is a thriller. | If laura's passport is missing then the movie is a thriller | Laura's passport is missing | The movie is a thriller | modus ponen | Laura's passport is missing | The movie is a thriller | Laura's passport is not missing | The movie is not a thriller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's passport is missing then the movie is a thriller, and laura's passport is missing, therefore the movie is a thriller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking at the door, since if the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the dog is barking at the door and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home. | If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the dog is barking at the door | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The dog is barking at the door | modus ponen | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The dog is barking at the door | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | The dog is not barking at the door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking at the door, since if the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the dog is barking at the door and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a history of stalking other women, since if laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then john davis had a history of stalking other women and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer. | If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then john davis had a history of stalking other women | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | modus ponen | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a history of stalking other women, since if laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then john davis had a history of stalking other women and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, since if laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom and laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis. | If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | Laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | modus ponen | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, since if laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom and laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not happy, as if the dog is happy then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene and the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. | If the dog is happy then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The dog is not happy | modus tollen | The dog is happy | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The dog is not happy | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is not happy, as if the dog is happy then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene and the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, thus a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning. | If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | Surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | 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: ```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, thus a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, because if a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder and a broken window was found in laura's bedroom. | If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | A broken window was found in laura's bedroom | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | modus ponen | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, because if a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder and a broken window was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, because if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | modus ponen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | 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: ```A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, because if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | modus ponen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder and 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|>
|
The car is moving, because if the tree is tall then the car is moving and the tree is tall. | If the tree is tall then the car is moving | The tree is tall | The car is moving | modus ponen | The tree is tall | The car is moving | The tree is not tall | The car is not moving | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is moving, because if the tree is tall then the car is moving and the tree is tall.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, which implies that the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. | If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | modus tollen | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, which implies that the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, since if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | modus tollen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, since if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, as if a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain and the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | modus tollen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, as if a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain and the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, since if the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house and the victim had a restraining order against the suspect. | If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | modus ponen | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, since if the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house and the victim had a restraining order against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the car is parked in the garage, and the car is not parked in the garage, so a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the car is parked in the garage | The car is not parked in the garage | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | modus tollen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | The car is parked in the garage | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | 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 forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the car is parked in the garage, and the car is not parked in the garage, so a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, as if john davis had a secret storage unit then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery and john davis had a secret storage unit. | If john davis had a secret storage unit then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | John davis had a secret storage unit | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | modus ponen | John Davis had a secret storage unit | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, as if john davis had a secret storage unit then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery and john davis had a secret storage unit.```<|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 car keys were not missing from their apartment, because if the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door and laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door. | If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | modus tollen | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment, because if the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door and laura's neighbors did not report 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|>
|
The bird is singing, since if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the bird is singing and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder. | If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the bird is singing | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | The bird is singing | modus ponen | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | The bird is singing | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | The bird is not singing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The bird is singing, since if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the bird is singing and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the eiffel tower is in paris, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, so it can be concluded that the eiffel tower is in paris. | If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the eiffel tower is in paris | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | modus ponen | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | 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 car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the eiffel tower is in paris, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, so it can be concluded that the eiffel tower is in paris.```<|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 dog next door then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, which establishes that the dog is not barking at the dog next door. | If the dog is barking at the dog next door then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the dog next door | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument 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 dog is barking at the dog next door then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, which establishes that the dog is not barking at the dog next 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 discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then laura's passport is missing, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which shows that laura's passport is missing. | If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then laura's passport is missing | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Laura's passport is missing | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Laura's passport is missing | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | 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 suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then laura's passport is missing, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which shows that laura's passport is missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not on the table, since if the book is on the table then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street. | If the book is on the table then the arson occurred on elm street | The arson did not occur on elm street | The book is not on the table | modus tollen | The book is on the table | The arson occurred on Elm Street | The book is not on the table | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not on the table, since if the book is on the table then the arson occurred on elm street and 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|>
|
If the bird is singing then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, and no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, which shows that the bird is not singing. | If the bird is singing then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | The bird is not singing | modus tollen | The bird is singing | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | The bird is not singing | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the bird is singing then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, and no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, which shows that the bird is not singing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the dog next door then the book is a mystery novel, and the book is not a mystery novel, so the dog is not barking at the dog next door. | If the dog is barking at the dog next door then the book is a mystery novel | The book is not a mystery novel | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the dog next door | The book is a mystery novel | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | The book is not a mystery novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the dog next door then the book is a mystery novel, and the book is not a mystery novel, so the dog is not barking at the dog next door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A gas leak was detected in the basement, because if laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then a gas leak was detected in the basement and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop. | If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then a gas leak was detected in the basement | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | A gas leak was detected in the basement | modus ponen | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | A gas leak was detected in the basement | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A gas leak was detected in the basement, because if laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then a gas leak was detected in the basement and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman 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, hence the dog is not barking at the mailman. | If the dog is barking at the mailman 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 | The dog is not barking at the mailman | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mailman | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | The dog is not barking at the mailman | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman 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, hence 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 laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, therefore laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john. | If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home | A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | modus tollen | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | 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 laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, therefore laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis has a history of violent behavior then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, therefore the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If john davis has a history of violent behavior then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John davis has a history of violent behavior | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus ponen | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | 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 john davis has a history of violent behavior then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, therefore the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is parked in the garage then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, so the car is not parked in the garage. | If the car is parked in the garage then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | The car is not parked in the garage | modus tollen | The car is parked in the garage | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | The car is not parked in the garage | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is parked in the garage then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, so 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|>
|
Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers, because if emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then the dog is barking at the mailman and the dog is not barking at the mailman. | If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then the dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is not barking at the mailman | 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 dog is barking at the mailman | Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers | The dog is not barking at the mailman | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers, because if emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then the dog is barking at the mailman and 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 the movie is a horror film then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and the movie is a horror film, so a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public. | If the movie is a horror film then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | The movie is a horror film | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | modus ponen | The movie is a horror film | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | The movie is not a horror film | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a horror film then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and the movie is a horror film, so a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which establishes that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home. | If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | modus tollen | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which establishes that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not 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|>
|
If the weather is hot and humid then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, hence the weather is not hot and humid. | If the weather is hot and humid then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The weather is not hot and humid | modus tollen | The weather is hot and humid | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The weather is not hot and humid | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is hot and humid then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, hence the weather is not hot and humid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, so the dog is not barking at the mailman. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | The dog is not barking at the mailman | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mailman | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | The dog is not barking at the mailman | 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: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, so 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 the cat is black then the book is a biography, and the cat is black, which shows that the book is a biography. | If the cat is black then the book is a biography | The cat is black | The book is a biography | modus ponen | The cat is black | The book is a biography | The cat is not black | 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 the cat is black then the book is a biography, and the cat is black, which shows that 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 a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and john davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck, so no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen. | If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck | John davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | modus tollen | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and john davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck, so no 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|>
|
The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, since if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder. | If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | modus ponen | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, since if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect and emily claims to have lost her phone 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 strand of hair was found at the crime scene then the baby is crying, and the baby is not crying, so it can be concluded that a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene. | If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then the baby is crying | The baby is not crying | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | modus tollen | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The baby is crying | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | The baby is not crying | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then the baby is crying, and the baby is not crying, so it can be concluded that a strand of hair was not 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 john davis had a history of stalking laura then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, so john davis did not have a history of stalking laura. | If john davis had a history of stalking laura then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of stalking laura then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, so 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 laura's car was found with a slashed tire then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, which establishes that officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | modus ponen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, which establishes that officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, because if a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene and a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine. | If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | A threatening message was left on laura's answering machine | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | modus ponen | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, because if a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene and a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, which establishes that the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information. | If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | modus ponen | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, which establishes that the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the football is round, and the football is not round, so john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues. | If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the football is round | The football is not round | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The football is round | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | The football is not round | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the football is round, and the football is not round, so john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, hence the suspect had no history of mental health issues. | If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside 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 suspect had a history of mental health issues then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, hence the suspect had no history of mental health issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, hence john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents. | If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then the cat is grooming itself | The cat is not grooming itself | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | modus tollen | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | The cat is grooming itself | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | 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 john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, hence john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and john davis did not have a history of anger management issues, thus john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms. | If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then john davis had a history of anger management issues | John davis did not have a history of anger management issues | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | modus tollen | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and john davis did not have a history of anger management issues, thus john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, because if the tree is tall then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder and the tree is tall. | If the tree is tall then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder | The tree is tall | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | modus ponen | The tree is tall | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | The tree is not tall | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, because if the tree is tall then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder and the tree is tall.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, which implies that no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | 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 footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, which implies that no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the weather is cold and snowy, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which implies that the weather is cold and snowy. | If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the weather is cold and snowy | Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The weather is cold and snowy | modus ponen | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The weather is cold and snowy | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The weather is not cold and snowy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the weather is cold and snowy, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which implies that the weather is cold and snowy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, since if john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest. | If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | modus ponen | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from 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: ```A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, since if john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, since if a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop. | If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | modus tollen | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, since if a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The weather is not nice, because if the weather is nice then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder and the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder. | If the weather is nice then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | The weather is not nice | modus tollen | The weather is nice | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | The weather is not nice | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The weather is not nice, because if the weather is nice then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder and the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, which shows that the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity. | If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | Detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | modus tollen | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, which shows that the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the cat is purring loudly, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, so the cat is purring loudly. | If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the cat is purring loudly | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The cat is purring loudly | modus ponen | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The cat is purring loudly | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | The cat is not purring loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the cat is purring loudly, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, so the cat is purring loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then john davis had a secret storage unit, and john davis did not have a secret storage unit, which shows that the victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker. | If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then john davis had a secret storage unit | John davis did not have a secret storage unit | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | modus tollen | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | John Davis had a secret storage unit | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then john davis had a secret storage unit, and john davis did not have a secret storage unit, which shows that the victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the water is warm then the movie is a science fiction film, and the movie is not a science fiction film, which implies that the water is not warm. | If the water is warm then the movie is a science fiction film | The movie is not a science fiction film | The water is not warm | modus tollen | The water is warm | The movie is a science fiction film | The water is not warm | The movie is not a science fiction film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the water is warm then the movie is a science fiction film, and the movie is not a science fiction film, which implies that the water is not warm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, as if the baby is playing with a toy car then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard and the baby is playing with a toy car. | If the baby is playing with a toy car then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | The baby is playing with a toy car | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | modus ponen | The baby is playing with a toy car | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | The baby is not playing with a toy car | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, as if the baby is playing with a toy car then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard and the baby is playing with a toy car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The computer is not on, as if the computer is on then the movie is a drama and the movie is not a drama. | If the computer is on then the movie is a drama | The movie is not a drama | The computer is not on | modus tollen | The computer is on | The movie is a drama | The computer is not on | 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: ```The computer is not on, as if the computer is on 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 forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and laura's prescription medications were not stolen, which implies that a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing. | If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then laura's prescription medications were stolen | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | modus tollen | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and laura's prescription medications were not stolen, which implies that a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the book is on the nightstand, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, hence the book is on the nightstand. | If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the book is on the nightstand | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The book is on the nightstand | modus ponen | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The book is on the nightstand | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | The book is not on the nightstand | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the book is on the nightstand, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, hence the book is on the nightstand.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had a secret storage room in her house then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and no broken window was found in laura's bedroom, which shows that laura did not have a secret storage room in her house. | If laura had a secret storage room in her house then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom | No broken window was found in laura's bedroom | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | modus tollen | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a secret storage room in her house then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and no broken window was found in laura's bedroom, which shows that laura did not have 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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the baby is playing with a toy car, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, which establishes that the baby is playing with a toy car. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the baby is playing with a toy car | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The baby is playing with a toy car | modus ponen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The baby is playing with a toy car | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | The baby is not playing with a toy car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the baby is playing with a toy car, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, which establishes that the baby is playing with a toy car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cold and snowy then john davis had bruises on his arms, and john davis did not have bruises on his arms, so the weather is not cold and snowy. | If the weather is cold and snowy then john davis had bruises on his arms | John davis did not have bruises on his arms | The weather is not cold and snowy | modus tollen | The weather is cold and snowy | John Davis had bruises on his arms | The weather is not cold and snowy | 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 weather is cold and snowy then john davis had bruises on his arms, and john davis did not have bruises on his arms, so the weather is not cold and snowy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then laura's garage door was left open, and laura's garage door was not left open, so the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m. | If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then laura's garage door was left open | Laura's garage door was not left open | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | modus tollen | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | Laura's garage door was left open | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | Laura's garage door was not left open | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then laura's garage door was left open, and laura's garage door was not left open, so the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is parked in the garage then the baby is crying, and the baby is not crying, which shows that the car is not parked in the garage. | If the car is parked in the garage then the baby is crying | The baby is not crying | The car is not parked in the garage | modus tollen | The car is parked in the garage | The baby is crying | The car is not parked in the garage | The baby is not crying | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is parked in the garage then the baby is crying, and the baby is not crying, which shows that 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 the weather is nice then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and the weather is nice, thus the sun is shining brightly overhead. | If the weather is nice then the sun is shining brightly overhead | The weather is nice | The sun is shining brightly overhead | modus ponen | The weather is nice | The sun is shining brightly overhead | The weather is not nice | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is nice then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and the weather is nice, thus the sun is shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, and a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, therefore surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river. | If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment | A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily'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 surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, and a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, therefore surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, hence the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | modus ponen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, hence the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the cat is purring loudly, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, so the cat is purring loudly. | If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the cat is purring loudly | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The cat is purring loudly | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The cat is purring loudly | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | The cat is not purring loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the cat is purring loudly, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, so the cat is purring loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's prescription medications were stolen then the pizza is hot, and laura's prescription medications were stolen, so it can be concluded that the pizza is hot. | If laura's prescription medications were stolen then the pizza is hot | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | The pizza is hot | modus ponen | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | The pizza is hot | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | The pizza is not hot | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's prescription medications were stolen then the pizza is hot, and laura's prescription medications were stolen, so it can be concluded that the pizza is hot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, as if john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage. | If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | modus tollen | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, as if john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's 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 the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home, so it can be concluded that the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information. | If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | modus tollen | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home, so it can be concluded that the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Paris is not in france, since if paris is in france then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property and a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property. | If paris is in france then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | Paris is not in France | modus tollen | Paris is in France | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | Paris is not in France | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Paris is not in france, since if paris is in france then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property and a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was found with a bag of cash then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, which implies that john davis was not found with a bag of cash. | If john davis was found with a bag of cash then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | modus tollen | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was found with a bag of cash then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, which implies that john davis was not found with a bag of cash.```<|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 neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then the computer is on, and the computer is not on, which establishes that emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder. | If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then the computer is on | The computer is not on | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | modus tollen | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | The computer is on | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | The computer is not on | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then the computer is on, and the computer is not on, which establishes that emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead. | If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | modus tollen | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, therefore the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim. | If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | No suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, therefore the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, since if a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene 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. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene 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 | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, since if a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene 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.```<|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 romance novel then laura's laptop was found smashed, and laura's laptop was not found smashed, which establishes that the book is not a romance novel. | If the book is a romance novel then laura's laptop was found smashed | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | The book is not a romance novel | modus tollen | The book is a romance novel | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The book is not a romance novel | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | 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 romance novel then laura's laptop was found smashed, and laura's laptop was not found smashed, which establishes that the book is not a romance novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument, so it can be concluded that a shattered vase was not found in the hallway. | If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | modus tollen | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument, so it can be concluded that a shattered vase was not found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, which establishes that the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus ponen | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | 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 surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, which establishes that the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, as if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder and sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder. | If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | Sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus tollen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, as if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder and sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, as if a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder. | If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | modus ponen | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, as if a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask and a toxicology report revealed 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 emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, which implies that detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects. | If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | modus ponen | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, which implies that detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had a secret storage room in her house then the movie is a thriller, and laura had a secret storage room in her house, therefore the movie is a thriller. | If laura had a secret storage room in her house then the movie is a thriller | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | The movie is a thriller | modus ponen | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | The movie is a thriller | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | The movie is not a thriller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a secret storage room in her house then the movie is a thriller, and laura had a secret storage room in her house, therefore the movie is a thriller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, since if a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house. | If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | A witness heard screams coming from laura's house | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | modus ponen | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, since if a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard and 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 laura's prescription medications were stolen then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, so laura's prescription medications were not stolen. | If laura's prescription medications were stolen then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | modus tollen | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | 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 a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, so laura's prescription medications were not stolen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.