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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The movie is not a drama, since if the movie is a drama then john davis had a history of financial problems and john davis did not have a history of financial problems. | If the movie is a drama then john davis had a history of financial problems | John davis did not have a history of financial problems | The movie is not a drama | modus tollen | The movie is a drama | John Davis had a history of financial problems | The movie is not a drama | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a drama, since if the movie is a drama then john davis had a history of financial problems and john davis did not have a history of financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, since if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | modus tollen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, since if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, because if a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument. | If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | modus tollen | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, because if a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the sky is blue, and the sky is not blue, which implies that a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the sky is blue | The sky is not blue | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | The sky is blue | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | The sky is not blue | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the sky is blue, and the sky is not blue, which implies that a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A gas leak was detected in the basement, because if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then a gas leak was detected in the basement and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then a gas leak was detected in the basement | A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | A gas leak was detected in the basement | modus ponen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | A gas leak was detected in the basement | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A gas leak was detected in the basement, because if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then a gas leak was detected in the basement and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, which implies that footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene. | If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | modus ponen | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, which implies that footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, therefore a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder. | If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | modus ponen | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, therefore a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, because if laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene and laura's dog was found locked in a closet. | If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | modus ponen | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, because if laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene and laura's dog was found locked in a closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking at the television, because if a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the dog is barking at the television and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder. | If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the dog is barking at the television | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The dog is barking at the television | modus ponen | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The dog is barking at the television | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The dog is not barking at the television | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking at the television, because if a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the dog is barking at the television and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the pizza is hot, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, so the pizza is hot. | If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the pizza is hot | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The pizza is hot | modus ponen | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The pizza is hot | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | The pizza is not hot | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the pizza is hot, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, so the pizza is hot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, hence laura's jewelry box was emptied. | If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then laura's jewelry box was emptied | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | modus ponen | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | 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 the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, hence laura's jewelry box was emptied.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis, thus the suspect had no history of mental health issues. | If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis | Laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against 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 the suspect had a history of mental health issues then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis, thus the suspect had no history of mental health issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the movie is a sports film, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, thus the movie is a sports film. | If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the movie is a sports film | John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The movie is a sports film | modus ponen | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The movie is a sports film | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | The movie is not a sports film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the movie is a sports film, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, thus the movie is a sports film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, because if detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment and no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment. | If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | modus tollen | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, because if detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment and no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking at the door, because if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the dog is barking at the door and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization. | If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the dog is barking at the door | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | The dog is barking at the door | modus ponen | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | The dog is barking at the door | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | The dog is not barking at the door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking at the door, because if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the dog is barking at the door and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, since if the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data. | If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | modus ponen | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, since if the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine 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|>
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the baby is crawling towards the door, and the baby is not crawling towards the door, so no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the baby is crawling towards the door | The baby is not crawling towards the door | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | modus tollen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | The baby is crawling towards the door | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | The baby is not crawling towards the door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the baby is crawling towards the door, and the baby is not crawling towards the door, so no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the weather is not cloudy and rainy, which shows that no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard. | If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then the weather is cloudy and rainy | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | modus tollen | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | The weather is cloudy and rainy | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the weather is not cloudy and rainy, which shows that no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.```<|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 book is a bestseller, and the book is not a bestseller, so john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape. | If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the book is a bestseller | The book is not a bestseller | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | modus tollen | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The book is a bestseller | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | 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 john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the book is a bestseller, and the book is not a bestseller, so 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|>
|
The sun is shining brightly, because if laura's dog was found locked in a closet then the sun is shining brightly and laura's dog was found locked in a closet. | If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then the sun is shining brightly | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | The sun is shining brightly | modus ponen | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | The sun is shining brightly | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | The sun is not shining brightly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is shining brightly, because if laura's dog was found locked in a closet then the sun is shining brightly and laura's dog was found locked in a 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 weather is cold and snowy then laura's garage door was left open, and the weather is cold and snowy, thus laura's garage door was left open. | If the weather is cold and snowy then laura's garage door was left open | The weather is cold and snowy | Laura's garage door was left open | modus ponen | The weather is cold and snowy | Laura's garage door was left open | The weather is not cold and snowy | Laura's garage door was not left open | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and snowy then laura's garage door was left open, and the weather is cold and snowy, thus laura's garage door was left open.```<|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 the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, and the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, so it can be concluded that no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet. | If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | modus tollen | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, and the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, so it can be concluded that 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|>
|
Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident, since if laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then the cat is purring contentedly and the cat is not purring contentedly. | If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then the cat is purring contentedly | The cat is not purring contentedly | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | modus tollen | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | The cat is purring contentedly | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | The cat is not purring contentedly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident, since if laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then the cat is purring contentedly and the cat is not purring contentedly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, because if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park. | If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, because if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, so no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office. | If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | modus tollen | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, so no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the movie is a documentary, and laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, which establishes that the movie is a documentary. | If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the movie is a documentary | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | The movie is a documentary | modus ponen | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | The movie is a documentary | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | 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 laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the movie is a documentary, and laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, which establishes that the movie is a documentary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, and the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, therefore a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo. | If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | modus ponen | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, and the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, therefore a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, so it can be concluded that a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning. | If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | modus ponen | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, so it can be concluded that a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, as if a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store. | If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | modus ponen | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, as if a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased and a delivery driver reported 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's car was found with a slashed tire then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, which implies that a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | modus ponen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, which implies that a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, because if dogs are not fish then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing and dogs are not fish. | If dogs are not fish then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Dogs are not fish | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | modus ponen | Dogs are not fish | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Dogs are fish | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, because if dogs are not fish then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing and dogs are not fish.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not teething on a toy, because if the baby is teething on a toy then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder. | If the baby is teething on a toy then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The baby is not teething on a toy | modus tollen | The baby is teething on a toy | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The baby is not teething on a toy | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not teething on a toy, because if the baby is teething on a toy then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, which shows that the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident. | If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | modus ponen | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, which shows that the suspect's alibi is he was at work during 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|>
|
The weather is nice, as if the book is written by a famous author then the weather is nice and the book is written by a famous author. | If the book is written by a famous author then the weather is nice | The book is written by a famous author | The weather is nice | modus ponen | The book is written by a famous author | The weather is nice | The book is not written by a famous author | The weather is not nice | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The weather is nice, as if the book is written by a famous author then the weather is nice and the book is written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, so a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder. | If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | modus ponen | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, so 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|>
|
If dogs are not fish 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, which shows that dogs are fish. | If dogs are not fish 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 | Dogs are fish | modus tollen | Dogs are not fish | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | Dogs are fish | 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: ```If dogs are not fish 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, which shows that dogs are fish.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's garage door was left open then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and laura's garage door was left open, so a broken chair was found in the kitchen. | If laura's garage door was left open then a broken chair was found in the kitchen | Laura's garage door was left open | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | modus ponen | Laura's garage door was left open | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | Laura's garage door was not left open | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | 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 garage door was left open then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and laura's garage door was left open, so a broken chair was found in the kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, because if the sun is shining then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession and the sun is shining. | If the sun is shining then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | The sun is shining | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | modus ponen | The sun is shining | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | The sun is not shining | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, because if the sun is shining then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession and the sun is 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 the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems 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, therefore the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems. | If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | 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 the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems 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, therefore the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, which establishes that no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry. | If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | modus tollen | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | 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 saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, which establishes that no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, and richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine, so no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder. | If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | Richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | modus tollen | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, and richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine, so no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon 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|>
|
The sun is not shining through the window, since if the sun is shining through the window then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard and no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard. | If the sun is shining through the window then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | The sun is not shining through the window | modus tollen | The sun is shining through the window | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | The sun is not shining through the window | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not shining through the window, since if the sun is shining through the window then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard and no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.```<|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 john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that john davis had recently purchased a firearm. | If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then john davis had recently purchased a firearm | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | modus ponen | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | 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 john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that john davis had recently purchased a firearm.```<|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 recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, which establishes that the suspect's name is not john davis. | If the suspect's name is john davis then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The suspect's name is not John Davis | modus tollen | The suspect's name is John Davis | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The suspect's name is not John Davis | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's name is john davis then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, which establishes 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 a neighbor heard a gunshot then laura's mail was tampered with, and laura's mail was not tampered with, hence a neighbor did not hear a gunshot. | If a neighbor heard a gunshot then laura's mail was tampered with | Laura's mail was not tampered with | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | modus tollen | A neighbor heard a gunshot | Laura's mail was tampered with | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | Laura's mail was not tampered with | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor heard a gunshot then laura's mail was tampered with, and laura's mail was not tampered with, hence a neighbor did not hear a gunshot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted, since if the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop and laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop. | If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | modus tollen | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | 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: ```The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted, since if the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop and laura's jewelry was not 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 interesting, since if the sun is setting then the book is interesting and the sun is setting. | If the sun is setting then the book is interesting | The sun is setting | The book is interesting | modus ponen | The sun is setting | The book is interesting | The sun is not setting | The book is not interesting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is interesting, since if the sun is setting then the book is interesting and the sun is setting.```<|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 a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, therefore a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned. | If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | modus ponen | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, therefore a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, so it can be concluded that the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities. | If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | modus ponen | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | 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 letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, so it can be concluded that the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities.```<|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 the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, so it can be concluded that the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars. | If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | modus ponen | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, so it can be concluded that the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not barking loudly, since if the dog is barking loudly then john davis had bruises on his arms and john davis did not have bruises on his arms. | If the dog is barking loudly then john davis had bruises on his arms | John davis did not have bruises on his arms | The dog is not barking loudly | modus tollen | The dog is barking loudly | John Davis had bruises on his arms | The dog is not barking loudly | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is not barking loudly, since if the dog is barking loudly then john davis had bruises on his arms and john davis did not have bruises on his arms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, as if richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account. | If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | modus ponen | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, as if richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mail truck then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and the dog is barking at the mail truck, which establishes that a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard. | If the dog is barking at the mail truck then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | The dog is barking at the mail truck | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the mail truck | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mail truck then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and the dog is barking at the mail truck, which establishes that a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the sky is blue, and the sky is not blue, so no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the sky is blue | The sky is not blue | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | modus tollen | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | The sky is blue | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | The sky is not blue | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the sky is blue, and the sky is not blue, so no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently, because if laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then the book is a romance novel and the book is not a romance novel. | If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then the book is a romance novel | The book is not a romance novel | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | modus tollen | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | The book is a romance novel | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | The book is not a romance novel | 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 history of changing her locks frequently, because if laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then the book is a romance novel and the book is not a romance novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the book is a mystery novel, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, therefore the book is a mystery novel. | If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the book is a mystery novel | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | The book is a mystery novel | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | The book is a mystery novel | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | 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 surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the book is a mystery novel, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, therefore the book is a mystery novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, as if laura's car was found with a slashed tire 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 laura's car was found with a slashed tire 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 | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | modus tollen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | 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: ```Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, as if laura's car was found with a slashed tire 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 the suspect's name is john davis then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and the suspect's name is john davis, which establishes that a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house. | If the suspect's name is john davis then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house | The suspect's name is john davis | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | modus ponen | The suspect's name is John Davis | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | The suspect's name is not John Davis | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's name is john davis then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and the suspect's name is john davis, which establishes that a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, since if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon and emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon. | If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | modus tollen | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, since if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon and emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a musical film then the dog is barking loudly, and the dog is not barking loudly, so the movie is not a musical film. | If the movie is a musical film then the dog is barking loudly | The dog is not barking loudly | The movie is not a musical film | modus tollen | The movie is a musical film | The dog is barking loudly | The movie is not a musical film | The dog is not barking loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a musical film then the dog is barking loudly, and the dog is not barking loudly, so the movie is not a musical film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which establishes that the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information. | If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the book is written by a famous author | The book is not written by a famous author | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | modus tollen | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The book is written by a famous author | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which establishes that the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, which implies that the suspect had no history of mental health issues. | If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, which implies that the suspect had no history of mental health issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, because if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement. | If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus ponen | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | 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: ```A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, because if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the dog next door then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, therefore the dog is not barking at the dog next door. | If the dog is barking at the dog next door then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | Sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the dog next door | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the dog next door then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, therefore the dog is not barking at the dog next door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, thus a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house. | If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | modus ponen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, thus a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, because if a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene. | If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | modus ponen | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, because if a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, as if the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems. | If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, as if the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring then the pizza is hot, and the pizza is not hot, which implies that the cat is not purring. | If the cat is purring then the pizza is hot | The pizza is not hot | The cat is not purring | modus tollen | The cat is purring | The pizza is hot | The cat is not purring | The pizza is not hot | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring then the pizza is hot, and the pizza is not hot, which implies that the cat is not purring.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a thriller then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and the movie is a thriller, which establishes that a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned. | If the movie is a thriller then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The movie is a thriller | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | modus ponen | The movie is a thriller | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The movie is not a thriller | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a thriller then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and the movie is a thriller, which establishes that a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the eiffel tower is in paris, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, thus the eiffel tower is in paris. | If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the eiffel tower is in paris | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | modus ponen | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the eiffel tower is in paris, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, thus the eiffel tower is in paris.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, which establishes that the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain. | If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the movie is a comedy-drama | The movie is not a comedy-drama | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | modus tollen | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The movie is a comedy-drama | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The movie is not a comedy-drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, which establishes that the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, so it can be concluded that a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene. | If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | modus ponen | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, so it can be concluded that a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the football is round then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and the football is round, which implies that detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom. | If the football is round then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | The football is round | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | modus ponen | The football is round | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The football is not round | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the football is round then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and the football is round, which implies that detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, thus the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it. | If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | modus tollen | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn 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 murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, thus the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is tall then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, which implies that the tree is not tall. | If the tree is tall then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | The tree is not tall | modus tollen | The tree is tall | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | The tree is not tall | 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: ```If the tree is tall then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, which implies that the tree is not tall.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, because if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder. | If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | modus ponen | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, because if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a gas leak was detected in the basement then the weather is hot and humid, and the weather is not hot and humid, which establishes that a gas leak was not detected in the basement. | If a gas leak was detected in the basement then the weather is hot and humid | The weather is not hot and humid | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | modus tollen | A gas leak was detected in the basement | The weather is hot and humid | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | The weather is not hot and humid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a gas leak was detected in the basement then the weather is hot and humid, and the weather is not hot and humid, which establishes that a gas leak was not detected in the basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is happy, as if the sun is shining brightly then the dog is happy and the sun is shining brightly. | If the sun is shining brightly then the dog is happy | The sun is shining brightly | The dog is happy | modus ponen | The sun is shining brightly | The dog is happy | The sun is not shining brightly | 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: ```The dog is happy, as if the sun is shining brightly then the dog is happy and the sun is shining brightly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then laura's pet cat is missing, and laura's pet cat is not missing, which shows that a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard. | If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then laura's pet cat is missing | Laura's pet cat is not missing | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | modus tollen | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Laura's pet cat is missing | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | 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 a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then laura's pet cat is missing, and laura's pet cat is not missing, which shows that a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account, as if richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the book is written by a famous author and the book is not written by a famous author. | If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the book is written by a famous author | The book is not written by a famous author | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | modus tollen | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | The book is written by a famous author | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | 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: ```Richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account, as if richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the book is written by a famous author and the book is not written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, thus a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment. | If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | modus tollen | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, thus a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is drinking from a bottle, as if sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then the baby is drinking from a bottle and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder. | If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then the baby is drinking from a bottle | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | The baby is drinking from a bottle | modus ponen | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | The baby is drinking from a bottle | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | 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 drinking from a bottle, as if sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then the baby is drinking from a bottle and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a sedan then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, therefore the car is not a sedan. | If the car is a sedan then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | The car is not a sedan | modus tollen | The car is a sedan | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | The car is not a sedan | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a sedan then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, therefore the car is not a sedan.```<|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 gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, which shows that a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession. | If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | modus tollen | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, which shows that a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, therefore the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect. | If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, therefore the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, as if the eiffel tower is in paris then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone and the eiffel tower is in paris. | If the eiffel tower is in paris then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | The eiffel tower is in paris | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | modus ponen | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | 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: ```A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, as if the eiffel tower is in paris then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone and the eiffel tower is in paris.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the car is parked on the street, and emily had recently taken a self-defense course, which implies that the car is parked on the street. | If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the car is parked on the street | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The car is parked on the street | modus ponen | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The car is parked on the street | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | The car is not parked on the street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the car is parked on the street, and emily had recently taken a self-defense course, which implies that 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 victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, therefore the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data. | If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | modus tollen | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, therefore the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's jewelry box was emptied then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, so detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom. | If laura's jewelry box was emptied then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | modus ponen | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's jewelry box was emptied then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, so detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The weather is cloudy and rainy, because if the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the weather is cloudy and rainy and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number. | If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the weather is cloudy and rainy | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The weather is cloudy and rainy | modus ponen | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The weather is cloudy and rainy | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The weather is cloudy and rainy, because if the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the weather is cloudy and rainy and the victim's phone records showed 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 the pizza is hot then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and laura did not have a secret storage room in her house, thus the pizza is not hot. | If the pizza is hot then laura had a secret storage room in her house | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | The pizza is not hot | modus tollen | The pizza is hot | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | The pizza is not hot | 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 pizza is hot then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and laura did not have a secret storage room in her house, thus the pizza is not hot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, because if the movie is a thriller then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk and the movie is a thriller. | If the movie is a thriller then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The movie is a thriller | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | modus ponen | The movie is a thriller | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The movie is not a thriller | 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: ```The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, because if the movie is a thriller then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk and the movie is a thriller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the door then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, and the dog is barking at the door, hence a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence. | If the dog is barking at the door then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | The dog is barking at the door | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the door | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | The dog is not barking at the door | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the door then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, and the dog is barking at the door, hence a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.```<|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 victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, which shows that the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors. | If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | modus ponen | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | 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 victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, which shows that the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, therefore laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop. | If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | modus tollen | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, therefore laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, and detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, which implies that a shattered vase was not found in the hallway. | If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk | Detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | modus tollen | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily'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 a shattered vase was found in the hallway then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, and detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, which implies that a shattered vase was not found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, as if emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim and the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim. | If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | modus tollen | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, as if emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim and the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, so the stolen van was not registered in a fake name. | If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | modus tollen | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, so the stolen van was not registered in a fake name.```<|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 sky is blue then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and the sky is blue, therefore a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park. | If the sky is blue then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The sky is blue | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | modus ponen | The sky is blue | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The sky is not blue | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sky is blue then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and the sky is blue, therefore a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, therefore sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy. | If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | modus ponen | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, therefore sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.```<|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.