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 john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, thus john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe. | If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles | Richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | modus tollen | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, thus john davis's fingerprints were not 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|>
|
John davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, because if john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace and a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace. | If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | modus tollen | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, because if john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace and a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, and no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, which implies that emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky. | If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | modus tollen | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, and no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, which implies that emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, hence forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing. | If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits | A homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | modus tollen | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, hence forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room, since if the dog is barking at the neighbors then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and the dog is barking at the neighbors. | If the dog is barking at the neighbors then a bloody footprint was found in the living room | The dog is barking at the neighbors | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the neighbors | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A bloody footprint was found in the living room, since if the dog is barking at the neighbors then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and the dog is barking at the neighbors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is happy then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and the baby is not crawling towards the toy, so it can be concluded that the dog is not happy. | If the dog is happy then the baby is crawling towards the toy | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | The dog is not happy | modus tollen | The dog is happy | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The dog is not happy | The baby is not crawling towards 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 the dog is happy then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and the baby is not crawling towards the toy, so it can be concluded that the dog is not happy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, therefore the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker. | If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | modus tollen | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, therefore the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's passport is missing then the book is a bestseller, and laura's passport is missing, therefore the book is a bestseller. | If laura's passport is missing then the book is a bestseller | Laura's passport is missing | The book is a bestseller | modus ponen | Laura's passport is missing | The book is a bestseller | Laura's passport is not missing | The book is not a bestseller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's passport is missing then the book is a bestseller, and laura's passport is missing, therefore the book is a bestseller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which shows that laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident. | If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | modus ponen | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which shows that laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, so it can be concluded that the suspect's name is not john davis. | If the suspect's name is john davis then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The suspect's name is not John Davis | modus tollen | The suspect's name is John Davis | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The suspect's name is not John Davis | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's name is john davis then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, so it can be concluded that 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 victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, so sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death. | If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | modus ponen | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, so sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death.```<|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 the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, and the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, which establishes that laura's car was not found with a slashed tire. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | modus tollen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, and the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, which establishes 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 detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, therefore the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information. | If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | modus ponen | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | 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 detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, therefore 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 sun is not setting slowly in the sky, since if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number and the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not setting slowly in the sky, since if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number and the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name, since if the sun is shining brightly overhead then the stolen van was registered in a fake name and the sun is shining brightly overhead. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | The sun is shining brightly overhead | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | modus ponen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The stolen van was registered in a fake name, since if the sun is shining brightly overhead then the stolen van was registered in a fake name and the sun is shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If it is raining today then laura's social media accounts were hacked, and it is raining today, hence laura's social media accounts were hacked. | If it is raining today then laura's social media accounts were hacked | It is raining today | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | modus ponen | It is raining today | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | It is not raining today | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If it is raining today then laura's social media accounts were hacked, and it is raining today, hence 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 john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, which establishes that richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions. | If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | modus ponen | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, which establishes that richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping on the couch then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, and the cat is sleeping on the couch, so the suspect had a history of violence against the victim. | If the cat is sleeping on the couch then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The cat is sleeping on the couch | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | modus ponen | The cat is sleeping on the couch | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping on the couch then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, and the cat is sleeping on the couch, so the suspect had a history of violence against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, which shows that officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene. | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is not barking at the mailman | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | modus tollen | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The dog is barking at the mailman | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | 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 officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, which shows that officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, as if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily and sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily. | If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | modus tollen | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, as if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily and sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is moving then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the car is moving, so it can be concluded that the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals. | If the car is moving then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The car is moving | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | modus ponen | The car is moving | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The car is not moving | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | 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 the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the car is moving, so it can be concluded that the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.```<|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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, as if the baby is crawling towards the door then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway and the baby is crawling towards the door. | If the baby is crawling towards the door then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | The baby is crawling towards the door | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the door | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | The baby is not crawling towards the door | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, as if the baby is crawling towards the door then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway and the baby is crawling towards the door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, thus the dog is not barking at the mailman. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | No suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | The dog is not barking at the mailman | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mailman | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | The dog is not barking at the mailman | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, thus the dog is not barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the book is a biography, and the book is not a biography, so footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store. | If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the book is a biography | The book is not a biography | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | modus tollen | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | The book is a biography | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | The book is not a biography | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the book is a biography, and the book is not a biography, so footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then paris is in france, and paris is not in france, thus the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive. | If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then paris is in france | Paris is not in france | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | modus tollen | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | Paris is in France | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | 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 victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then paris is in france, and paris is not in france, thus the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.```<|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 remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the book is a mystery novel, and the book is not a mystery novel, so no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning. | If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the book is a mystery novel | The book is not a mystery novel | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | modus tollen | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | The book is a mystery novel | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | The book is not a mystery novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then the book is a mystery novel, and the book is not a mystery novel, so no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, therefore the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk. | If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | modus ponen | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, therefore the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, which establishes that john davis had a history of stalking laura. | If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then john davis had a history of stalking laura | A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | modus ponen | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, which establishes that john davis had a history of stalking laura.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a history of substance abuse, as if the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then john davis had a history of substance abuse and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees. | If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then john davis had a history of substance abuse | The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | modus ponen | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a history of substance abuse, as if the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then john davis had a history of substance abuse and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring loudly then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, and emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, which implies that the cat is not purring loudly. | If the cat is purring loudly then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The cat is not purring loudly | modus tollen | The cat is purring loudly | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The cat is not purring loudly | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring loudly then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, and emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, which implies 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|>
|
John davis had a history of substance abuse, since if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then john davis had a history of substance abuse and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive. | If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then john davis had a history of substance abuse | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | modus ponen | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a history of substance abuse, since if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then john davis had a history of substance abuse and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, since if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders and john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders. | If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders | John davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, since if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders and john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping in the sun then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, and no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, hence the cat is not sleeping in the sun. | If the cat is sleeping in the sun then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping in the sun | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | 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 the cat is sleeping in the sun then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, and no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, hence the cat is not sleeping in the sun.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, because if laura's wedding ring is missing then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity and laura's wedding ring is missing. | If laura's wedding ring is missing then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | Laura's wedding ring is missing | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | modus ponen | Laura's wedding ring is missing | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, because if laura's wedding ring is missing then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity and laura's wedding ring is missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, as if the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation. | If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | modus ponen | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | 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: ```The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, as if the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, which shows that a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox. | If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | modus tollen | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, which shows that a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, so it can be concluded that no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim. | If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | modus tollen | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, so it can be concluded that no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, so the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses. | If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | modus ponen | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, so the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses.```<|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 claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then laura's pet cat is missing, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, which shows that laura's pet cat is missing. | If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then laura's pet cat is missing | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Laura's pet cat is missing | modus ponen | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Laura's pet cat is missing | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | 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 emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then laura's pet cat is missing, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, which shows that 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 the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the book is on the bestseller list, and the book is not on the bestseller list, thus no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder. | If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the book is on the bestseller list | The book is not on the bestseller list | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | modus tollen | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The book is on the bestseller list | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The book is not on the bestseller list | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the book is on the bestseller list, and the book is not on the bestseller list, thus no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then the dog is happy, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, therefore the dog is happy. | If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then the dog is happy | A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | The dog is happy | modus ponen | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | The dog is happy | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | The dog is not happy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then the dog is happy, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, therefore the dog is happy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the suspect had no history of mental health issues, therefore no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the suspect had a history of mental health issues | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus tollen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the suspect had no history of mental health issues, therefore no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, and laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, therefore a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store. | If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | modus tollen | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, and laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, therefore a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near 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 laura had installed a home security system then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit, which shows that laura had not installed a home security system. | If laura had installed a home security system then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | John davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | Laura had not installed a home security system | modus tollen | Laura had installed a home security system | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | Laura had not installed a home security system | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had installed a home security system then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit, which shows that laura had not installed a home security system.```<|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 did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, since if the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number and the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number. | If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, since if the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number and the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the bird is singing, and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, which establishes that the bird is singing. | If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the bird is singing | Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | The bird is singing | modus ponen | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | The bird is singing | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | The bird is not singing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the bird is singing, and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, which establishes that the bird is singing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then the suspect's name is john davis, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, which shows that the suspect's name is john davis. | If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then the suspect's name is john davis | A witness heard screams coming from laura's house | The suspect's name is John Davis | modus ponen | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | The suspect's name is John Davis | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | 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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house then the suspect's name is john davis, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, 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 a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, which implies that the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon. | If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | modus ponen | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, which implies that the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to 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|>
|
If the book is a mystery novel then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and the book is a mystery novel, which shows that officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store. | If the book is a mystery novel then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The book is a mystery novel | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | modus ponen | The book is a mystery novel | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The book is not a mystery novel | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a mystery novel then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and the book is a mystery novel, which shows that officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, which shows that richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles. | If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | modus tollen | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, which shows that richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the arson occurred on elm street then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and the arson occurred on elm street, which shows that a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits. | If the arson occurred on elm street then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits | The arson occurred on elm street | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | modus ponen | The arson occurred on Elm Street | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the arson occurred on elm street then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and the arson occurred on elm street, which shows that a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, since if john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the baby is teething on a toy and the baby is not teething on a toy. | If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the baby is teething on a toy | The baby is not teething on a toy | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | modus tollen | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The baby is teething on a toy | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | 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: ```John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, since if john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the baby is teething on a toy and the baby is not teething on a toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the baby is sleeping, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, thus the baby is sleeping. | If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the baby is sleeping | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The baby is sleeping | modus ponen | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The baby is sleeping | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | 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 the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the baby is sleeping, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, 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|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and laura's jewelry box was not emptied, which establishes that no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard. | If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then laura's jewelry box was emptied | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | modus tollen | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and laura's jewelry box was not emptied, which establishes that no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, since if the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then the tree is shedding leaves and the tree is not shedding leaves. | If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then the tree is shedding leaves | The tree is not shedding leaves | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The tree is shedding leaves | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | The tree is not shedding leaves | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, since if the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then the tree is shedding leaves and the tree is not shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the movie is a documentary, and the movie is not a documentary, thus john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape. | If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the movie is a documentary | The movie is not a documentary | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | modus tollen | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The movie is a documentary | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | The movie is not a documentary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the movie is a documentary, and the movie is not a documentary, thus john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then water is h2o, and water is not h2o, thus the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest. | If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then water is h2o | Water is not h2o | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | modus tollen | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Water is H2O | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Water is not H2O | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then water is h2o, and water is not h2o, thus the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, because if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | modus tollen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, because if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.```<|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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet and no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet. | If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | modus tollen | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, since if laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet and no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then the sun is shining brightly, and a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, which establishes that the sun is shining brightly. | If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then the sun is shining brightly | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | The sun is shining brightly | modus ponen | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | The sun is shining brightly | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | The sun is not shining brightly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then the sun is shining brightly, and a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, which establishes that the sun is shining brightly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, as if a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the sun is shining and the sun is not shining. | If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the sun is shining | The sun is not shining | 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 | The sun is shining | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | 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: ```A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, as if a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the sun is shining and the sun is not shining.```<|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 john davis had a history of stalking laura, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, so john davis had a history of stalking laura. | If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then john davis had a history of stalking laura | Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | modus ponen | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, so john davis had a history of stalking laura.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, so it can be concluded that a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop. | If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then emily had recently taken a self-defense course | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | modus tollen | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, so it can be concluded that a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, as if a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed. | If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | modus tollen | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, as if a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | modus ponen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt 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|>
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, since if detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter. | If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | Detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | modus ponen | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, since if detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter.```<|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 setting slowly in the sky, since if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the sun is setting slowly in the sky and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene. | If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | modus ponen | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is setting slowly in the sky, since if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the sun is setting slowly in the sky and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, which establishes that laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | modus ponen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, which establishes that laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura did not have a life insurance policy, since if laura had a life insurance policy then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store and officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store. | If laura had a life insurance policy then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | Officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | modus tollen | Laura had a life insurance policy | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura did not have a life insurance policy, since if laura had a life insurance policy then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store and officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, hence 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 dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is not barking at the mailman | 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 dog is barking at the mailman | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | 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 suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, hence 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|>
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot, since if john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then a neighbor heard a gunshot and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues. | If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then a neighbor heard a gunshot | John davis had a history of psychiatric issues | A neighbor heard a gunshot | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | A neighbor heard a gunshot | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor heard a gunshot, since if john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then a neighbor heard a gunshot and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, since if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | modus tollen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | 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: ```A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, since if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence 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 dog is happy then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and the dog is happy, which implies that a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep. | If the dog is happy then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | The dog is happy | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | modus ponen | The dog is happy | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | The dog is not happy | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is happy then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and the dog is happy, which implies that a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, hence no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office. | If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the book is written by a famous author | The book is not written by a famous author | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | modus tollen | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The book is written by a famous author | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | 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 a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, hence no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is crawling towards the cat, since if the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the baby is crawling towards the cat and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data. | If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the baby is crawling towards the cat | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The baby is crawling towards the cat | modus ponen | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The baby is crawling towards the cat | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | 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 crawling towards the cat, since if the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the baby is crawling towards the cat and 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|>
|
The sun is shining, as if the movie is a science fiction film then the sun is shining and the movie is a science fiction film. | If the movie is a science fiction film then the sun is shining | The movie is a science fiction film | The sun is shining | modus ponen | The movie is a science fiction film | The sun is shining | The movie is not a science fiction film | 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: ```The sun is shining, as if the movie is a science fiction film then the sun is shining and the movie is a science fiction film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the water is warm then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and the water is warm, so a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If the water is warm then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | The water is warm | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus ponen | The water is warm | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | The water is not warm | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the water is warm then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and the water is warm, so a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is moving then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and the car is moving, therefore laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop. | If the car is moving then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The car is moving | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | modus ponen | The car is moving | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The car is not moving | 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 car is moving then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and the car is moving, therefore 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|>
|
The book is not on the nightstand, because if the book is on the nightstand then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store and officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store. | If the book is on the nightstand then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | Officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The book is not on the nightstand | modus tollen | The book is on the nightstand | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The book is not on the nightstand | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not on the nightstand, because if the book is on the nightstand then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store and officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and john davis was not found with a bag of cash, therefore laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions. | If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then john davis was found with a bag of cash | John davis was not found with a bag of cash | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | modus tollen | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and john davis was not found with a bag of cash, therefore laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, as if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | 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 | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, as if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, as if the weather is cold and rainy then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail and the weather is cold and rainy. | If the weather is cold and rainy then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The weather is cold and rainy | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | modus ponen | The weather is cold and rainy | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The weather is not cold and rainy | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, as if the weather is cold and rainy then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail and the weather is cold and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the pizza is hot then the victim's name is laura martinez, and the pizza is hot, so the victim's name is laura martinez. | If the pizza is hot then the victim's name is laura martinez | The pizza is hot | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | modus ponen | The pizza is hot | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | The pizza is not hot | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the pizza is hot then the victim's name is laura martinez, and the pizza is hot, so the victim's name is laura martinez.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, therefore a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster. | If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | modus ponen | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, therefore a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which shows that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which shows that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's name is laura martinez then the book is on the nightstand, and the victim's name is laura martinez, which shows that the book is on the nightstand. | If the victim's name is laura martinez then the book is on the nightstand | The victim's name is laura martinez | The book is on the nightstand | modus ponen | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | The book is on the nightstand | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | The book is not on the nightstand | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's name is laura martinez then the book is on the nightstand, and the victim's name is laura martinez, which shows that 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 hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the baby is playing with a toy car, and the baby is not playing with a toy car, thus no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house. | If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the baby is playing with a toy car | The baby is not playing with a toy car | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | modus tollen | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The baby is playing with a toy car | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The baby is not playing with a toy car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the baby is playing with a toy car, and the baby is not playing with a toy car, thus no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is teething on a toy, as if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the baby is teething on a toy and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive. | If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the baby is teething on a toy | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The baby is teething on a toy | modus ponen | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The baby is teething on a toy | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | 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: ```The baby is teething on a toy, as if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the baby is teething on a toy and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive.```<|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 playing with blocks, since if the apple is red then the baby is playing with blocks and the apple is red. | If the apple is red then the baby is playing with blocks | The apple is red | The baby is playing with blocks | modus ponen | The apple is red | The baby is playing with blocks | The apple is not red | The baby is not playing with blocks | 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 playing with blocks, since if the apple is red then the baby is playing with blocks and the apple is red.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the car is parked on the street, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, therefore the car is parked on the street. | If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the car is parked on the street | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The car is parked on the street | modus ponen | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The car is parked on the street | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | The car is not parked on the street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the car is parked on the street, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, therefore the car is parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a memoir then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, therefore the book is not a memoir. | If the book is a memoir then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | The book is not a memoir | modus tollen | The book is a memoir | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | The book is not a memoir | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a memoir then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, therefore the book is not a memoir.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, therefore the sun is not setting slowly. | If the sun is setting slowly then officer brown discovered a hidden basement | Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement | The sun is not setting slowly | modus tollen | The sun is setting slowly | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | The sun is not setting slowly | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, therefore the sun is not setting slowly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If it is raining today then dogs are not fish, and dogs are fish, so it can be concluded that it is not raining today. | If it is raining today then dogs are not fish | Dogs are fish | It is not raining today | modus tollen | It is raining today | Dogs are not fish | It is not raining today | 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 it is raining today then dogs are not fish, and dogs are fish, so it can be concluded that it is not raining today.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, because if laura's house was booby-trapped then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder and laura's house was booby-trapped. | If laura's house was booby-trapped then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | Laura's house was booby-trapped | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | modus ponen | Laura's house was booby-trapped | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days 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: ```The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, because if laura's house was booby-trapped then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder and laura's house was booby-trapped.```<|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 emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, which establishes that emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle. | If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | modus ponen | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, which establishes that emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is shining, since if the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the sun is shining and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim. | If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the sun is shining | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The sun is shining | modus ponen | 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: ```The sun is shining, since if the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the sun is shining and the suspect had 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 had recently received threatening letters in the mail then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, which implies that laura had a secret storage room in her house. | If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then laura had a secret storage room in her house | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | modus ponen | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, which implies that laura had a secret storage room in her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, as if the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest. | If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | modus ponen | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, as if the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, so it can be concluded that the suspect had a history of mental health issues. | If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the suspect had a history of mental health issues | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | modus ponen | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, so it can be concluded that the suspect had a history of mental health issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying loudly then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and the baby is crying loudly, so it can be concluded that the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information. | If the baby is crying loudly then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The baby is crying loudly | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | modus ponen | The baby is crying loudly | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The baby is not crying loudly | 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 the baby is crying loudly then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and the baby is crying loudly, so it can be concluded 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|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.