Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street. stringlengths 74 421 | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street stringlengths 36 192 | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 788 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street stringclasses 788 values | modus ponen stringclasses 2 values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1 stringclasses 394 values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street stringclasses 394 values | True bool 1 class | text stringlengths 453 800 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then laura had installed a home security system, and laura had not installed a home security system, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then laura had installed a home security system | Laura had not installed a home security system | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | modus tollen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | Laura had installed a home security system | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | Laura had not installed a home security system | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then laura had installed a home security system, and laura had not installed a home security system, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then the car is parked on the street, and the car is not parked on the street, therefore a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily. | If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then the car is parked on the street | The car is not parked on the street | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | modus tollen | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | The car is parked on the street | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | 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 a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then the car is parked on the street, and the car is not parked on the street, therefore a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, so it can be concluded that no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus tollen | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, so it can be concluded that no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, thus the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary. | If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is not barking at the mailman | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | modus tollen | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The dog is barking at the mailman | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The dog is not barking at the mailman | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, thus the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the car is parked in the garage, and the car is not parked in the garage, which implies that the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard. | If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the car is parked in the garage | The car is not parked in the garage | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | modus tollen | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The car is parked in the garage | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | The car is not parked in the garage | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the car is parked in the garage, and the car is not parked in the garage, which implies that the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, which implies that a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder. | If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | modus ponen | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, which implies that a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, which implies that a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine. | If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine | John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | modus ponen | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | 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: ```If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, which implies that a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, therefore a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property. | If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | modus ponen | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, therefore a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the tree is shedding leaves, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, which establishes that the tree is shedding leaves. | If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the tree is shedding leaves | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The tree is shedding leaves | modus ponen | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The tree is shedding leaves | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The tree is not shedding leaves | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the tree is shedding leaves, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, which establishes that the tree is shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis has a history of violent behavior then the dog is barking loudly, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, which establishes that the dog is barking loudly. | If john davis has a history of violent behavior then the dog is barking loudly | John davis has a history of violent behavior | The dog is barking loudly | modus ponen | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | The dog is barking loudly | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | 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 john davis has a history of violent behavior then the dog is barking loudly, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, which establishes that the dog is barking loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is shedding leaves then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, which shows that the tree is not shedding leaves. | If the tree is shedding leaves then john davis had a history of stalking laura | John davis did not have a history of stalking laura | The tree is not shedding leaves | modus tollen | The tree is shedding leaves | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | The tree is not shedding leaves | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is shedding leaves then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, which shows that the tree is not shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is black then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, therefore the cat is not black. | If the cat is black then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | The cat is not black | modus tollen | The cat is black | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | The cat is not black | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is black then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, therefore the cat is not black.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, because if the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house and the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain. | If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | modus ponen | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, because if the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house and the murder weapon was 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|>
|
The movie is a musical film, because if the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the movie is a musical film and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker. | If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the movie is a musical film | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The movie is a musical film | modus ponen | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The movie is a musical film | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | The movie is not a musical film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is a musical film, because if the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the movie is a musical film and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the cat is sleeping soundly, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, therefore the cat is sleeping soundly. | If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the cat is sleeping soundly | John davis had a cache of illegal firearms | The cat is sleeping soundly | modus ponen | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | The cat is sleeping soundly | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | The cat is not sleeping soundly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the cat is sleeping soundly, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, therefore the cat is sleeping soundly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is parked in the garage then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, so it can be concluded that the car is not parked in the garage. | If the car is parked in the garage then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | The car is not parked in the garage | modus tollen | The car is parked in the garage | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The car is not parked in the garage | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is parked in the garage then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, so it can be concluded that the car is not parked in the garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, and the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information, which implies that a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake. | If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | modus tollen | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, and the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information, which implies that a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a sports film then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and the movie is a sports film, which implies that a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene. | If the movie is a sports film then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The movie is a sports film | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | modus ponen | The movie is a sports film | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The movie is not a sports film | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a sports film then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and the movie is a sports film, which implies that a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a secret storage unit then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, and john davis had a secret storage unit, thus the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror. | If john davis had a secret storage unit then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | John davis had a secret storage unit | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | modus ponen | John Davis had a secret storage unit | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a secret storage unit then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, and john davis had a secret storage unit, thus the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the victim's name is laura martinez, and the victim's name is not laura martinez, thus no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster. | If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the victim's name is laura martinez | The victim's name is not laura martinez | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | modus tollen | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the victim's name is laura martinez, and the victim's name is not laura martinez, thus 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|>
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, hence detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | modus ponen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, hence detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, therefore a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo. | If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | modus ponen | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | 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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, 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|>
|
John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, as if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily. | If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | modus ponen | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, as if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the baby is crying in the stroller, and the baby is not crying in the stroller, thus the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased. | If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the baby is crying in the stroller | The baby is not crying in the stroller | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | modus tollen | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The baby is crying in the stroller | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | The baby is not crying in the stroller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the baby is crying in the stroller, and the baby is not crying in the stroller, thus the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased.```<|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 family reported receiving anonymous threats, as if the book is on the nightstand then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats and the book is on the nightstand. | If the book is on the nightstand then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The book is on the nightstand | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | modus ponen | The book is on the nightstand | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The book is not on the nightstand | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, as if the book is on the nightstand then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats and the book is on the nightstand.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then paris is in france, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, which implies that paris is in france. | If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then paris is in france | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | Paris is in France | modus ponen | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | Paris is in France | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | Paris is not in France | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then paris is in france, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, which implies that paris is in france.```<|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 broken chair was found in the kitchen then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which implies that a broken chair was not found in the kitchen. | If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | modus tollen | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which implies that a broken chair was not 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|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then a shattered vase was found in the hallway, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, hence a shattered vase was found in the hallway. | If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then a shattered vase was found in the hallway | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then a shattered vase was found in the hallway, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, hence a shattered vase was found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then laura's pet cat is missing, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, which shows that laura's pet cat is missing. | If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then laura's pet cat is missing | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Laura's pet cat is missing | modus ponen | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Laura's pet cat is missing | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | 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 security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then laura's pet cat is missing, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, which shows that laura's pet cat is missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, because if the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors. | If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | modus tollen | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | 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: ```The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, because if the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and the victim had not 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|>
|
The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror, since if the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap and the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap. | If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | modus tollen | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror, since if the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap and the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap.```<|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 using aliases and false identities then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, therefore a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office. | If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, therefore a 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 the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, which implies that emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder. | If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | modus ponen | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, which implies that emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, as if emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the baby is laughing at the toy and the baby is not laughing at the toy. | If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the baby is laughing at the toy | The baby is not laughing at the toy | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | modus tollen | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The baby is laughing at the toy | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The baby is not laughing at the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, as if emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the baby is laughing at the toy and the baby is not laughing at the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a comedy-drama then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and the movie is a comedy-drama, therefore the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary. | If the movie is a comedy-drama then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The movie is a comedy-drama | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | modus ponen | The movie is a comedy-drama | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The movie is not a comedy-drama | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a comedy-drama then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and the movie is a comedy-drama, therefore the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sky is not blue, since if the sky is blue then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon and emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon. | If the sky is blue then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | The sky is not blue | modus tollen | The sky is blue | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The sky is not blue | 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: ```The sky is not blue, since if the sky is blue 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 a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the dog is barking, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, thus the dog is barking. | If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the dog is barking | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | The dog is barking | modus ponen | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | The dog is barking | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | The dog is not barking | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the dog is barking, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, thus the dog is barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, thus sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder. | If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | modus ponen | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, thus sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, so a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo. | If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | modus ponen | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | 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 laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, so 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|>
|
A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, because if the stolen van was registered in a fake name then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen and the stolen van was registered in a fake name. | If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | modus ponen | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, because if the stolen van was registered in a fake name then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen and the stolen van was 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|>
|
Paris is in france, because if a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then paris is in france and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id. | If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then paris is in france | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | Paris is in France | modus ponen | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Paris is in France | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Paris is not in France | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Paris is in france, because if a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then paris is in france and 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|>
|
Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, as if officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the movie is a family film and the movie is not a family film. | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the movie is a family film | The movie is not a family film | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | modus tollen | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The movie is a family film | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | The movie is not a family film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, as if officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the movie is a family film and the movie is not a family film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a documentary, since if the movie is a documentary then the dog is barking loudly and the dog is not barking loudly. | If the movie is a documentary then the dog is barking loudly | The dog is not barking loudly | The movie is not a documentary | modus tollen | The movie is a documentary | The dog is barking loudly | The movie is not a documentary | The dog is not barking loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a documentary, since if the movie is a documentary then the dog is barking loudly and the dog is not barking loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, so a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment. | If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | modus ponen | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, so a 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|>
|
If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the movie is a comedy, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, therefore the movie is a comedy. | If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the movie is a comedy | John davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The movie is a comedy | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The movie is a comedy | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | The movie is not a comedy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the movie is a comedy, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, therefore the movie is a comedy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, as if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions. | If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | modus ponen | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, as if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, hence detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard. | If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | A bloody shirt was found in john davis's car | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | modus ponen | A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, hence detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, so it can be concluded that a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home. | If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | modus ponen | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, so it can be concluded that a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, which implies that no bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway. | If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | modus tollen | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, which implies that no bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and laura did not have a secret storage room in her house, which establishes that forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing. | If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then laura had a secret storage room in her house | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | modus tollen | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | 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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and laura did not have a secret storage room in her house, which establishes that forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and the sun is not shining brightly in the sky, therefore laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer. | If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then the sun is shining brightly in the sky | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | modus tollen | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and the sun is not shining brightly in the sky, therefore laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, because if a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene. | If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, because if a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then the movie is a comedy-drama, and a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, therefore the movie is a comedy-drama. | If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then the movie is a comedy-drama | A threatening message was left on laura's answering machine | The movie is a comedy-drama | modus ponen | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | The movie is a comedy-drama | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | 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 a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then the movie is a comedy-drama, and a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, therefore the movie is a comedy-drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the weather is hot and humid, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, therefore the weather is hot and humid. | If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the weather is hot and humid | The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | The weather is hot and humid | modus ponen | The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | The weather is hot and humid | The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder | 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 the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the weather is hot and humid, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, therefore the weather is hot and humid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the baby is teething on a toy, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, thus the baby is teething on a toy. | If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the baby is teething on a toy | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The baby is teething on a toy | modus ponen | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The baby is teething on a toy | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | The baby is not teething on a toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the baby is teething on a toy, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, thus the baby is teething on a toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, therefore laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats. | If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | No homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | modus tollen | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, therefore laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If paris is in france then the movie is exciting, and paris is in france, so it can be concluded that the movie is exciting. | If paris is in france then the movie is exciting | Paris is in france | The movie is exciting | modus ponen | Paris is in France | The movie is exciting | Paris is not in France | The movie is not exciting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If paris is in france then the movie is exciting, and paris is in france, so it can be concluded that the movie is exciting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, as if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement. | If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | modus ponen | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, as if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker 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|>
|
The victim's name is sarah mitchell, as if a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the victim's name is sarah mitchell and a broken chair was found in the kitchen. | If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the victim's name is sarah mitchell | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | modus ponen | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's name is sarah mitchell, as if a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the victim's name is sarah mitchell and 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|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and the book is written by a famous author, hence john davis was found with a bag of cash. | If the book is written by a famous author then john davis was found with a bag of cash | The book is written by a famous author | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | modus ponen | The book is written by a famous author | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | The book is not written by a famous author | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and the book is written by a famous author, hence john davis was found with a bag of cash.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, since if the phone is ringing then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id and the phone is ringing. | If the phone is ringing then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | The phone is ringing | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | modus ponen | The phone is ringing | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The phone is not ringing | 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: ```A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, since if the phone is ringing then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id and the phone is ringing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's mail was tampered with then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and laura's mail was tampered with, which shows that a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry. | If laura's mail was tampered with then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | Laura's mail was tampered with | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | modus ponen | Laura's mail was tampered with | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | Laura's mail was not tampered with | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's mail was tampered with then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and laura's mail was tampered with, which shows that a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle, since if the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the car is a hybrid and the car is not a hybrid. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the car is a hybrid | The car is not a hybrid | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | The car is a hybrid | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | The car is not a hybrid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle, since if the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the car is a hybrid and the car is not a hybrid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, therefore the dog is barking at the squirrel. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the dog is barking at the squirrel | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | The dog is barking at the squirrel | modus ponen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | The dog is barking at the squirrel | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, therefore the dog is barking at the squirrel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the baby is crawling towards the door, and the baby is not crawling towards the door, therefore a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home. | If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the baby is crawling towards the door | The baby is not crawling towards the door | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | modus tollen | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | The baby is crawling towards the door | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the baby is crawling towards the door, and the baby is not crawling towards the door, therefore a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis has a history of violent behavior, because if laura's garage door was left open then john davis has a history of violent behavior and laura's garage door was left open. | If laura's garage door was left open then john davis has a history of violent behavior | Laura's garage door was left open | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | modus ponen | Laura's garage door was left open | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | Laura's garage door was not left open | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis has a history of violent behavior, because if laura's garage door was left open then john davis has a history of violent behavior and 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 footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, which implies that footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene. | If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | modus tollen | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, which implies that footprints matching john's shoes were not 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 the sun is setting slowly then the cat is black, and the sun is setting slowly, therefore the cat is black. | If the sun is setting slowly then the cat is black | The sun is setting slowly | The cat is black | modus ponen | The sun is setting slowly | The cat is black | The sun is not setting slowly | The cat is not black | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly then the cat is black, and the sun is setting slowly, therefore the cat is black.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then the computer is on, and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, which establishes that the computer is on. | If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then the computer is on | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The computer is on | modus ponen | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The computer is on | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | The computer is not on | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then the computer is on, and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, which establishes that the computer is on.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, hence the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary. | If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | modus ponen | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, hence the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and the weather is mild and pleasant, so john davis had recently purchased a firearm. | If the weather is mild and pleasant then john davis had recently purchased a firearm | The weather is mild and pleasant | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | modus ponen | The weather is mild and pleasant | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | The weather is not mild and pleasant | 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 the weather is mild and pleasant then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and the weather is mild and pleasant, so 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 a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, hence a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | modus tollen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, hence a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not a biography, since if the book is a biography then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster and no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster. | If the book is a biography then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The book is not a biography | modus tollen | The book is a biography | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The book is not a biography | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not a biography, since if the book is a biography then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster and no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, thus the dog is not barking at the mailman. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | The dog is not barking at the mailman | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mailman | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The dog is not barking at the mailman | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, thus the dog is not barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, therefore the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted. | If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | modus ponen | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, therefore the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not playing with toys, because if the baby is playing with toys then the baby is crawling towards the cat and the baby is not crawling towards the cat. | If the baby is playing with toys then the baby is crawling towards the cat | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | The baby is not playing with toys | modus tollen | The baby is playing with toys | The baby is crawling towards the cat | The baby is not playing with toys | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not playing with toys, because if the baby is playing with toys then the baby is crawling towards the cat and the baby is not crawling towards the cat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the movie is a family film, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, which shows that the movie is a family film. | If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the movie is a family film | John davis had a cache of illegal firearms | The movie is a family film | modus ponen | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | The movie is a family film | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | The movie is not a family 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 had a cache of illegal firearms then the movie is a family film, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, which shows that the movie is a family 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 detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, hence detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse. | If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home | A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | modus tollen | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, hence detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the toy then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, so the baby is not crawling towards the toy. | If the baby is crawling towards the toy then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the toy | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the toy then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, so the baby is not crawling towards the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining through the window then the cat is sleeping soundly, and the cat is not sleeping soundly, thus the sun is not shining through the window. | If the sun is shining through the window then the cat is sleeping soundly | The cat is not sleeping soundly | The sun is not shining through the window | modus tollen | The sun is shining through the window | The cat is sleeping soundly | The sun is not shining through the window | The cat is not sleeping soundly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining through the window then the cat is sleeping soundly, and the cat is not sleeping soundly, thus the sun is not shining through the window.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring loudly then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, which implies that the cat is not purring loudly. | If the cat is purring loudly then laura's dog was found locked in a closet | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | The cat is not purring loudly | modus tollen | The cat is purring loudly | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | The cat is not purring loudly | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring loudly then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, which implies that the cat is not purring loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sky is blue then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and the sky is blue, hence a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene. | If the sky is blue then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The sky is blue | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | modus ponen | The sky is blue | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The sky is not blue | 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 the sky is blue then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and the sky is blue, hence 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 a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the book is a mystery novel, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, thus the book is a mystery novel. | If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the book is a mystery novel | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The book is a mystery novel | modus ponen | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The book is a mystery novel | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The book is not a mystery novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the book is a mystery novel, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, thus 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|>
|
If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, so no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror. | If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | modus tollen | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, so no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cold and snowy then laura had installed a home security system, and the weather is cold and snowy, which shows that laura had installed a home security system. | If the weather is cold and snowy then laura had installed a home security system | The weather is cold and snowy | Laura had installed a home security system | modus ponen | The weather is cold and snowy | Laura had installed a home security system | The weather is not cold and snowy | Laura had not installed a home security system | 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 had installed a home security system, and the weather is cold and snowy, which shows that laura had installed a home security system.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, as if sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house. | If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | modus ponen | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, as if sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a sedan then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and the car is a sedan, thus john davis had recently purchased a firearm. | If the car is a sedan then john davis had recently purchased a firearm | The car is a sedan | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | modus ponen | The car is a sedan | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | The car is not a sedan | 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 the car is a sedan then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and the car is a sedan, thus 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 a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, hence no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | modus tollen | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, hence no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, thus john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest. | If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | modus ponen | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, thus john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a history of stalking other women, since if a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then john davis had a history of stalking other women and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door. | If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then john davis had a history of stalking other women | A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | modus ponen | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a history of stalking other women, since if a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then john davis had a history of stalking other women and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, which implies that the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect. | If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | modus ponen | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, which implies that the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If water is h2o then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, and no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, which implies that water is not h2o. | If water is h2o then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | No stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | Water is not H2O | modus tollen | Water is H2O | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Water is not H2O | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If water is h2o then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, and no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, which implies that water is not h2o.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is playing with a toy car, since if the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the baby is playing with a toy car and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard. | If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the baby is playing with a toy car | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The baby is playing with a toy car | modus ponen | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The baby is playing with a toy car | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | The baby is not playing with a toy car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is playing with a toy car, since if the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the baby is playing with a toy car and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, which implies that no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus tollen | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, which implies that no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, so a witness heard screams coming from laura's house. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | modus ponen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, so a witness heard screams coming from laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, which establishes that a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits. | If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | modus tollen | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, which establishes that a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, therefore fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop. | If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, therefore fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, so laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | modus tollen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, so laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The weather is mild and pleasant, because if the weather is cloudy and rainy then the weather is mild and pleasant and the weather is cloudy and rainy. | If the weather is cloudy and rainy then the weather is mild and pleasant | The weather is cloudy and rainy | The weather is mild and pleasant | modus ponen | The weather is cloudy and rainy | The weather is mild and pleasant | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | The weather is not mild and pleasant | 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 mild and pleasant, because if the weather is cloudy and rainy then the weather is mild and pleasant and the weather is cloudy and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and the suspect's name is john davis, which implies that a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine. | If the suspect's name is john davis then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine | The suspect's name is john davis | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | modus ponen | The suspect's name is John Davis | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | The suspect's name is not John Davis | 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: ```If the suspect's name is john davis then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and the suspect's name is john davis, which implies that a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.