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 laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, which shows that laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then a 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 arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | modus tollen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, which shows that 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|>
|
If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, thus a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene. | If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | modus ponen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, thus a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask 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|>
|
The baby is crying, because if laura's social media accounts were hacked then the baby is crying and laura's social media accounts were hacked. | If laura's social media accounts were hacked then the baby is crying | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | The baby is crying | modus ponen | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | The baby is crying | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | 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: ```The baby is crying, because if laura's social media accounts were hacked then the baby is crying and laura's social media accounts were hacked.```<|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 jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, thus officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene. | If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | No suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | modus tollen | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | 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 officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, thus officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the book is on the nightstand, and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, hence the book is on the nightstand. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the book is on the nightstand | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | The book is on the nightstand | modus ponen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | The book is on the nightstand | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | 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 laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the book is on the nightstand, and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, 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 a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, therefore john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe. | If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | A witness heard screams coming from laura's house | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | modus ponen | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, therefore john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, so it can be concluded that the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data. | If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | modus ponen | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, so it can be concluded that the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, as if fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop. | If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | modus ponen | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | 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, as if fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking loudly, as if laura's car was found with a slashed tire then the dog is barking loudly and laura's car was found with a slashed tire. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then the dog is barking loudly | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | The dog is barking loudly | modus ponen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | The dog is barking loudly | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | The dog is not barking loudly | 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 loudly, as if laura's car was found with a slashed tire then the dog is barking loudly and laura's car was found with a slashed tire.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething then the movie is a musical film, and the baby is teething, therefore the movie is a musical film. | If the baby is teething then the movie is a musical film | The baby is teething | The movie is a musical film | modus ponen | The baby is teething | The movie is a musical film | The baby is not teething | The movie is not a musical film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething then the movie is a musical film, and the baby is teething, therefore the movie is a musical film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, as if officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then laura had recently changed her social media passwords and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords. | If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | modus tollen | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, as if officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then laura had recently changed her social media passwords and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, thus the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary. | If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | Detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | modus tollen | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, thus 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 detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, and the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim, so detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects. | If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | modus tollen | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, and the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim, so detective parker did not receive 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 the book is a biography then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the book is a biography, therefore the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees. | If the book is a biography then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The book is a biography | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | modus ponen | The book is a biography | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The book is not a biography | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a biography then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the book is a biography, therefore the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone, which establishes that laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker. | If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | John davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | modus tollen | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | 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 an unknown stalker then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone, which establishes that laura's diary does not contain mentions 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 a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, 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 a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | 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 | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | 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 a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, 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 suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the sun is shining, and the sun is not shining, which shows that the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim. | If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the sun is shining | The sun is not shining | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The sun is shining | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | The sun is not shining | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the sun is shining, and the sun is not shining, which shows that the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, hence the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder. | If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | modus tollen | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect'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 victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, hence the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, as if the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then laura had a secret storage room in her house and laura did not have a secret storage room in her house. | If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then laura had a secret storage room in her house | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | modus tollen | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, as if the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then laura had a secret storage room in her house and 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 john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, so it can be concluded that the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard. | If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | John davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | 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: ```If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, so it can be concluded that the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's pet cat is missing then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and laura's pet cat is missing, which shows that the cat is sleeping on the couch. | If laura's pet cat is missing then the cat is sleeping on the couch | Laura's pet cat is missing | The cat is sleeping on the couch | modus ponen | Laura's pet cat is missing | The cat is sleeping on the couch | Laura's pet cat is not missing | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's pet cat is missing then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and laura's pet cat is missing, which shows that the cat is sleeping on the couch.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the cat is grooming itself, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, so the cat is grooming itself. | If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the cat is grooming itself | John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The cat is grooming itself | modus ponen | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The cat is grooming itself | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | 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 a lock-picking kit then the cat is grooming itself, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, so the cat is grooming itself.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, thus the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home. | If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | modus tollen | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, thus the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, because if the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker. | If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | modus ponen | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, because if the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is grooming itself, as if richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then the cat is grooming itself and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery. | If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then the cat is grooming itself | Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery | The cat is grooming itself | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | The cat is grooming itself | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | The cat is not grooming itself | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is grooming itself, as if richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then the cat is grooming itself and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is teething, since if john davis had a history of identity theft then the baby is teething and john davis had a history of identity theft. | If john davis had a history of identity theft then the baby is teething | John davis had a history of identity theft | The baby is teething | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of identity theft | The baby is teething | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | The baby is not teething | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is teething, since if john davis had a history of identity theft then the baby is teething and john davis had a history of identity theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, since if laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | modus ponen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | 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: ```A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, since if laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, as if sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder and sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | modus tollen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, as if sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder and sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, so john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | modus ponen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, so 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|>
|
If the car is moving then dogs are not fish, and dogs are fish, hence the car is not moving. | If the car is moving then dogs are not fish | Dogs are fish | The car is not moving | modus tollen | The car is moving | Dogs are not fish | The car is not moving | Dogs are fish | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is moving then dogs are not fish, and dogs are fish, hence the car is not moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, hence no bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway. | If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | modus tollen | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, hence no bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was 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 the sun is shining then the baby is teething, and the sun is shining, so it can be concluded that the baby is teething. | If the sun is shining then the baby is teething | The sun is shining | The baby is teething | modus ponen | The sun is shining | The baby is teething | The sun is not shining | The baby is not teething | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining then the baby is teething, and the sun is shining, so it can be concluded that the baby is teething.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, which shows that the dog is barking at the mailman. | If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the dog is barking at the mailman | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The dog is barking at the mailman | modus ponen | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The dog is barking at the mailman | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The dog is not barking at the mailman | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, which shows that the dog is barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring loudly then a shattered vase was found in the hallway, and a shattered vase was not found in the hallway, which shows that the cat is not purring loudly. | If the cat is purring loudly then a shattered vase was found in the hallway | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | The cat is not purring loudly | modus tollen | The cat is purring loudly | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | The cat is not purring loudly | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring loudly then a shattered vase was found in the hallway, and a shattered vase was not found in the hallway, which shows that the cat is not 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 weather is cold and rainy then paris is in france, and paris is not in france, which implies that the weather is not cold and rainy. | If the weather is cold and rainy then paris is in france | Paris is not in france | The weather is not cold and rainy | modus tollen | The weather is cold and rainy | Paris is in France | The weather is not cold and rainy | Paris is not in France | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and rainy then paris is in france, and paris is not in france, which implies that the weather is not cold and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, hence surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store. | If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, hence 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|>
|
The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, because if the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery and the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery. | If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | modus tollen | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, because if the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery and the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, and emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which shows that laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident. | If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | modus tollen | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, and emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which shows that laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, as if a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry and no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry. | If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | No witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | modus tollen | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, as if a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry and no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is written by a famous author, because if a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the book is written by a famous author and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the book is written by a famous author | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The book is written by a famous author | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The book is written by a famous author | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is written by a famous author, because if a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the book is written by a famous author and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions, because if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery and the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery. | If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | modus tollen | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions, because if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery and the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, and a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, thus a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom. | If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | modus ponen | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | 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: ```If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, and a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, thus a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is not barking at the mail truck, so no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park. | If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the dog is barking at the mail truck | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | modus tollen | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The dog is barking at the mail truck | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | 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 a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is not barking at the mail truck, so no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, therefore detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects. | If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | modus ponen | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, therefore 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|>
|
Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, because if detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office and no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office. | If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | modus tollen | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, because if detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office and no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the movie is a science fiction film, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, thus the movie is a science fiction film. | If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the movie is a science fiction film | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The movie is a science fiction film | modus ponen | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The movie is a science fiction film | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | 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 victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the movie is a science fiction film, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, thus the movie is a science fiction film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and the sun is setting, hence emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon. | If the sun is setting then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The sun is setting | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | modus ponen | The sun is setting | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The sun is not setting | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and the sun is setting, hence emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, as if emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene. | If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | modus tollen | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, as if emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then a shattered vase was found in the hallway, and a shattered vase was not found in the hallway, which implies that a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house. | If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then a shattered vase was found in the hallway | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then a shattered vase was found in the hallway, and a shattered vase was not found in the hallway, which implies that a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around 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|>
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, because if a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder and a broken window was found in laura's bedroom. | If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | A broken window was found in laura's bedroom | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | modus ponen | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, because if a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of 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|>
|
If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, which establishes that a bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then a bloody footprint was found in the living room | Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus ponen | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, which establishes that a bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sally is older than john then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and sally is older than john, which shows that a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard. | If sally is older than john then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Sally is older than john | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | modus ponen | Sally is older than John | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Sally is not older than John | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect'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 sally is older than john then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and sally is older than john, which shows that a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, therefore the dog is barking at the squirrel. | If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the dog is barking at the squirrel | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The dog is barking at the squirrel | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The dog is barking at the squirrel | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, therefore the dog is barking at the squirrel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the movie is a thriller, and the movie is not a thriller, which implies that sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the movie is a thriller | The movie is not a thriller | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | modus tollen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | The movie is a thriller | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | 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 sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the movie is a thriller, and the movie is not a thriller, which implies that sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which establishes that laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors. | If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the book is written by a famous author | The book is not written by a famous author | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | modus tollen | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | The book is written by a famous author | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which establishes that laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of stalking other women then the baby is laughing at the toy, and the baby is not laughing at the toy, which shows that john davis did not have a history of stalking other women. | If john davis had a history of stalking other women then the baby is laughing at the toy | The baby is not laughing at the toy | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | The baby is laughing at the toy | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | The baby is not laughing at the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of stalking other women then the baby is laughing at the toy, and the baby is not laughing at the toy, which shows that john davis did not have a history of stalking other women.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and the weather is mild and pleasant, hence a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene. | If the weather is mild and pleasant then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The weather is mild and pleasant | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | modus ponen | The weather is mild and pleasant | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The weather is not mild and pleasant | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is mild and pleasant then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and the weather is mild and pleasant, hence a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with, as if laura's mail was tampered with then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet and officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet. | If laura's mail was tampered with then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet | Officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet | Laura's mail was not tampered with | modus tollen | Laura's mail was tampered with | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | Laura's mail was not tampered with | 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: ```Laura's mail was not tampered with, as if laura's mail was tampered with then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet and officer lewis did not find 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|>
|
If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, thus detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom. | If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | modus ponen | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, thus detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of stalking other women then a gas leak was detected in the basement, and a gas leak was not detected in the basement, which shows that john davis did not have a history of stalking other women. | If john davis had a history of stalking other women then a gas leak was detected in the basement | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | A gas leak was detected in the basement | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | 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: ```If john davis had a history of stalking other women then a gas leak was detected in the basement, and a gas leak was not detected in the basement, which shows that john davis did not have a history of stalking other women.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then the dog is barking, and the dog is not barking, which establishes that laura's laptop was not found smashed. | If laura's laptop was found smashed then the dog is barking | The dog is not barking | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | modus tollen | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The dog is barking | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | The dog is not barking | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then the dog is barking, and the dog is not barking, which establishes that laura's laptop was not found smashed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, so the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization. | If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | modus ponen | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, so the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is parked on the street then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and the car is parked on the street, which shows that laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident. | If the car is parked on the street then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | The car is parked on the street | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | modus ponen | The car is parked on the street | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | The car is not parked on the street | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is parked on the street then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and the car is parked on the street, which shows that laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis has a history of violent behavior then the sun is shining through the window, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, so the sun is shining through the window. | If john davis has a history of violent behavior then the sun is shining through the window | John davis has a history of violent behavior | The sun is shining through the window | modus ponen | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | The sun is shining through the window | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | The sun is not shining through the window | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis has a history of violent behavior then the sun is shining through the window, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, so the sun is shining through the window.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining through the window then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the sun is shining through the window, so the victim's name is sarah mitchell. | If the sun is shining through the window then the victim's name is sarah mitchell | The sun is shining through the window | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | modus ponen | The sun is shining through the window | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | The sun is not shining through the window | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | 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 through the window then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the sun is shining through the window, so the victim's name is sarah mitchell.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, since if emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat and a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat. | If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat | A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | modus tollen | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, since if emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat and a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, thus the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect. | If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | No witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a 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 victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, thus the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, and no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, thus the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data. | If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | modus tollen | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, and no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, thus the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not barking loudly, because if the dog is barking loudly then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine and a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine. | If the dog is barking loudly then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine | A threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine | The dog is not barking loudly | modus tollen | The dog is barking loudly | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | The dog is not barking loudly | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is not barking loudly, because if the dog is barking loudly then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine and a threatening message was not 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|>
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene, as if a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident and laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | modus tollen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene, as if a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident and laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, which shows that laura's car was not found with a slashed tire. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | modus tollen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | 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 laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, which shows that laura's car was not found with a slashed tire.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, so a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the baby is teething on a toy | The baby is not teething on a toy | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | The baby is teething on a toy | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | The baby is not teething on a toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, so a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, which implies that john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms. | If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | modus tollen | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, which implies that 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|>
|
Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, as if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the movie is a drama and the movie is not a drama. | If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the movie is a drama | The movie is not a drama | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | modus tollen | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | The movie is a drama | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | 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: ```Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, as if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal 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 laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the cat is purring contentedly, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, therefore the cat is purring contentedly. | If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the cat is purring contentedly | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The cat is purring contentedly | modus ponen | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The cat is purring contentedly | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | The cat is not purring contentedly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the cat is purring contentedly, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, therefore the cat is purring contentedly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then laura had a life insurance policy, and laura did not have a life insurance policy, which implies that detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom. | If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then laura had a life insurance policy | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | modus tollen | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | Laura had a life insurance policy | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | Laura did not have a 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 detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then laura had a life insurance policy, and laura did not have a life insurance policy, which implies that detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is shining through the window, because if the book is a collection of short stories then the sun is shining through the window and the book is a collection of short stories. | If the book is a collection of short stories then the sun is shining through the window | The book is a collection of short stories | The sun is shining through the window | modus ponen | The book is a collection of short stories | The sun is shining through the window | The book is not a collection of short stories | The sun is not shining through the window | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is shining through the window, because if the book is a collection of short stories then the sun is shining through the window and the book is a collection of short stories.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then the baby is playing with toys, and the baby is not playing with toys, hence the book is not written by a famous author. | If the book is written by a famous author then the baby is playing with toys | The baby is not playing with toys | The book is not written by a famous author | modus tollen | The book is written by a famous author | The baby is playing with toys | The book is not written by a famous author | The baby is not playing with toys | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then the baby is playing with toys, and the baby is not playing with toys, hence the book is not written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's prescription medications were stolen then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and laura's prescription medications were stolen, thus richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account. | If laura's prescription medications were stolen then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | modus ponen | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's prescription medications were stolen then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and laura's prescription medications were stolen, thus richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's garage door was left open, because if the phone is ringing then laura's garage door was left open and the phone is ringing. | If the phone is ringing then laura's garage door was left open | The phone is ringing | Laura's garage door was left open | modus ponen | The phone is ringing | Laura's garage door was left open | The phone is not ringing | 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: ```Laura's garage door was left open, because if the phone is ringing then laura's garage door was left open and the phone is ringing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted, hence officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store. | If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | modus tollen | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted, hence officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, which implies that the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information. | If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | John davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | 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 john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, which implies 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|>
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data, since if the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene and a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene. | If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | modus tollen | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | 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: ```The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data, since if the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene and a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, which establishes that john davis had a history of identity theft. | If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then john davis had a history of identity theft | John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | John Davis had a history of identity theft | modus ponen | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | John Davis had a history of identity theft | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, which establishes that john davis had a history of identity theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then laura's phone records show calls to 911, and laura's phone records do not show calls to 911, so the suspect's name is not john davis. | If the suspect's name is john davis then laura's phone records show calls to 911 | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | The suspect's name is not John Davis | modus tollen | The suspect's name is John Davis | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | The suspect's name is not John Davis | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's name is john davis then laura's phone records show calls to 911, and laura's phone records do not show calls to 911, so the suspect's name is not john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then laura's pet cat is missing, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, hence laura's pet cat is missing. | If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then laura's pet cat is missing | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Laura's pet cat is missing | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Laura's pet cat is missing | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Laura's pet cat 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 had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then laura's pet cat is missing, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, hence laura's pet cat 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|>
|
If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the suspect's name is john davis, and a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, which shows that the suspect's name is john davis. | If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the suspect's name is john davis | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The suspect's name is John Davis | modus ponen | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The suspect's name is John Davis | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The suspect's name is not John Davis | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the suspect's name is john davis, and a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, which shows that the suspect's name is john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring loudly then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and the cat is purring loudly, which shows that a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings. | If the cat is purring loudly then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | The cat is purring loudly | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | modus ponen | The cat is purring loudly | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | The cat is not purring loudly | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring loudly then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and the cat is purring loudly, which shows that a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and the suspect's name is john davis, which establishes that laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop. | If the suspect's name is john davis then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The suspect's name is john davis | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | modus ponen | The suspect's name is John Davis | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The suspect's name is not John Davis | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's name is john davis then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and the suspect's name is john davis, which establishes that 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|>
|
Richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, as if richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then laura's pet cat is missing and laura's pet cat is not missing. | If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then laura's pet cat is missing | Laura's pet cat is not missing | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | modus tollen | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | Laura's pet cat is missing | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | Laura's pet cat 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: ```Richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, as if richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then laura's pet cat is missing and laura's pet cat is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, which establishes that john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone. | If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | modus ponen | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, which establishes that john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, which implies that a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster. | If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | modus ponen | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, which implies that a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire, since if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then laura's car was found with a slashed tire and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors. | If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | modus ponen | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's car was found with a slashed tire, since if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then laura's car was found with a slashed tire and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, as if the cat is purring loudly then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment and the cat is purring loudly. | If the cat is purring loudly then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The cat is purring loudly | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | modus ponen | The cat is purring loudly | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The cat is not purring loudly | 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: ```The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, as if the cat is purring loudly then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment and 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 a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the baby is sleeping, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, thus the baby is sleeping. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the baby is sleeping | A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | The baby is sleeping | modus ponen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | The baby is sleeping | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | The baby is not sleeping | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the baby is sleeping, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, thus the baby is sleeping.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, since if laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement. | If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | modus tollen | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, since if laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a science fiction film then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard, thus the movie is not a science fiction film. | If the movie is a science fiction film then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | The movie is not a science fiction film | modus tollen | The movie is a science fiction film | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The movie is not a science fiction film | 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: ```If the movie is a science fiction film then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard, thus the movie is not a science fiction film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and a bloody footprint was found in the living room, which establishes that john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents. | If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | modus ponen | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and a bloody footprint was found in the living room, which establishes that john davis was 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 laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, which establishes that sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder. | If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | modus ponen | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, which establishes that sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the sun is shining through the window, and the sun is not shining through the window, therefore no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the sun is shining through the window | The sun is not shining through the window | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | modus tollen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The sun is shining through the window | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The sun is not shining through the window | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the sun is shining through the window, and the sun is not shining through the window, therefore no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.