Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street. stringlengths 74 421 | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street stringlengths 36 192 | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 788 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street stringclasses 788 values | modus ponen stringclasses 2 values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1 stringclasses 394 values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street stringclasses 394 values | True bool 1 class | text stringlengths 453 800 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If laura's wedding ring is missing then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased, therefore laura's wedding ring is not missing. | If laura's wedding ring is missing then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | modus tollen | Laura's wedding ring is missing | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's wedding ring is missing then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased, therefore laura's wedding ring is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, and detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car. | If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | Detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | modus tollen | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, and detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, and officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, so surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house. | If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, and officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, so surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah'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 emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed, therefore emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate. | If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | modus tollen | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed, therefore emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate.```<|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 laura's house was booby-trapped, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, which implies that laura's house was booby-trapped. | If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then laura's house was booby-trapped | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | Laura's house was booby-trapped | modus ponen | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | Laura's house was booby-trapped | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | 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 laura's house was booby-trapped, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, which implies that laura's house was booby-trapped.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's garage door was left open then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, thus laura's garage door was not left open. | If laura's garage door was left open then laura's dog was found locked in a closet | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | Laura's garage door was not left open | modus tollen | Laura's garage door was left open | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | Laura's garage door was not left open | 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 laura's garage door was left open then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, thus laura's garage door was not 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 the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, so the cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror. | If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | modus tollen | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, so the cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck. | If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms | John davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | modus tollen | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | 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 arms and neck then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, since if detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement. | If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | modus ponen | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, since if detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The football is round, since if the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the football is round and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased. | If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the football is round | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The football is round | modus ponen | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The football is round | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | The football is not round | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The football is round, since if the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the football is round and the jewelry store's insurance policy had 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|>
|
If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, so the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause. | If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | 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 | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | 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 life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, so the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, because if the dog is barking at the stranger then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings and the dog is barking at the stranger. | If the dog is barking at the stranger then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings | The dog is barking at the stranger | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the stranger | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | The dog is not barking at the stranger | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, because if the dog is barking at the stranger then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings and the dog is barking at the stranger.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is crying, since if laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the baby is crying and laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the baby is crying | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | The baby is crying | modus ponen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | The baby is crying | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | The baby is not crying | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is crying, since if laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the baby is crying and laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van.```<|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's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, hence john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe. | If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles | Richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | modus tollen | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, hence john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, which establishes that the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems. | If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | modus ponen | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | 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 suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, which establishes that the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, because if the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead. | If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | modus ponen | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, because if the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, thus emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | modus tollen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | 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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, thus 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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, so no witness heard screams coming from laura's house. | If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | modus tollen | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah'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 witness heard screams coming from laura's house then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, so no 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 the dog is barking at the door then the cat is purring, and the dog is barking at the door, so it can be concluded that the cat is purring. | If the dog is barking at the door then the cat is purring | The dog is barking at the door | The cat is purring | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the door | The cat is purring | The dog is not barking at the door | The cat is not purring | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the door then the cat is purring, and the dog is barking at the door, so it can be concluded that the cat is purring.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the sun is shining brightly in the sky, so it can be concluded that the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals. | If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | modus ponen | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the sun is shining brightly in the sky, so it can be concluded that the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, because if footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby and footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene. | If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | modus ponen | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, because if footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby and footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, hence laura had a secret storage room in her house. | If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then laura had a secret storage room in her house | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | modus ponen | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect'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 a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, hence laura had a secret storage room in her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the dog is barking at the mailman, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, therefore the dog is barking at the mailman. | If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the dog is barking at the mailman | Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The dog is barking at the mailman | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The dog is barking at the mailman | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | 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 richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the dog is barking at the mailman, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, therefore the dog is barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, as if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal. | If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | modus ponen | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, as if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, since if surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number and the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number. | If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, since if surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number and the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, which implies that a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags. | If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | modus ponen | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, which implies that a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, since if the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim and the suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim. | If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | modus tollen | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, since if the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim and the suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, because if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity and the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity. | If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | modus tollen | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, because if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity and the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, which establishes that no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car. | If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | modus tollen | A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, which establishes that no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and the suspect's name is john davis, hence the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary. | If the suspect's name is john davis then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The suspect's name is john davis | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | modus ponen | The suspect's name is John Davis | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The suspect's name is not John Davis | 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 the suspect's name is john davis then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and the suspect's name is john davis, 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|>
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, as if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house and no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house. | If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | modus tollen | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, as if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house and no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, therefore a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office. | If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | modus ponen | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, therefore a 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 emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage, hence emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder. | If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | modus tollen | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage, hence emily's car was not 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|>
|
John davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit, because if john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the car is parked on the street and the car is not parked on the street. | If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the car is parked on the street | The car is not parked on the street | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus tollen | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The car is parked on the street | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | 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: ```John davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit, because if john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the car is parked on the street and the car is not parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, because if officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone. | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | modus tollen | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at 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: ```Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, because if officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and the suspect's name is john davis, which shows that the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary. | If the suspect's name is john davis then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The suspect's name is john davis | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | modus ponen | The suspect's name is John Davis | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The suspect's name is not John Davis | 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 suspect's name is john davis then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and the suspect's name is john davis, which shows that 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|>
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the sun is setting, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, which establishes that the sun is setting. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the sun is setting | A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | The sun is setting | modus ponen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | The sun is setting | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | The sun is not setting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the sun is setting, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, which establishes that the sun is setting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying loudly then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings, which shows that the baby is not crying loudly. | If the baby is crying loudly then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings | The baby is not crying loudly | modus tollen | The baby is crying loudly | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | The baby is not crying loudly | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying loudly then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings, which shows that the baby is not crying loudly.```<|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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, since if laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker. | If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | modus ponen | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, since if laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, which establishes that laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis. | If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | modus ponen | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, which establishes that laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, which establishes that the sun is not shining. | If the sun is shining then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse | The sun is not shining | modus tollen | The sun is shining | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | The sun is not shining | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, which establishes that the sun is not shining.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, and laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, therefore the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity. | If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | modus tollen | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, and laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, therefore the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, thus laura's phone records do not show calls to 911. | If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | modus tollen | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, thus laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, which establishes that laura's medical records were accessed without authorization. | If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | modus ponen | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, which establishes that laura's medical records were accessed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping soundly then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, which shows that the cat is not sleeping soundly. | If the cat is sleeping soundly then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | The cat is not sleeping soundly | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping soundly | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | The cat is not sleeping soundly | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping soundly then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, which shows that the cat is not 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 a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the book is interesting, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, so it can be concluded that the book is interesting. | If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the book is interesting | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The book is interesting | modus ponen | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The book is interesting | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The book is not interesting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the book is interesting, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, so it can be concluded that the book is interesting.```<|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 laughing at the toy, because if the baby is laughing at the toy then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar and a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar. | If the baby is laughing at the toy then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar | A fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar | The baby is not laughing at the toy | modus tollen | The baby is laughing at the toy | A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar | The baby is not laughing at the toy | A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar | 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 laughing at the toy, because if the baby is laughing at the toy then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar and a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the water is warm, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, which establishes that the water is warm. | If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the water is warm | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The water is warm | modus ponen | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The water is warm | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | The water is not warm | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the water is warm, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, which establishes that the water is warm.```<|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 detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, so detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects. | If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | modus ponen | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, so detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the movie is a science fiction film, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, therefore the movie is a science fiction film. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the movie is a science fiction film | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The movie is a science fiction film | modus ponen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The movie is a science fiction film | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The movie is not a science fiction film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the movie is a science fiction film, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, therefore the movie is a science fiction film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, hence no coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe. | If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | modus tollen | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, hence no coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, because if the movie is a drama then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs and the movie is a drama. | If the movie is a drama then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | The movie is a drama | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | modus ponen | The movie is a drama | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | The movie is not a drama | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | 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 collection of disturbing photographs, because if the movie is a drama then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs and the movie is a drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which shows that a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone. | If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | modus ponen | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which shows that a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The apple is red, because if laura had a secret storage room in her house then the apple is red and laura had a secret storage room in her house. | If laura had a secret storage room in her house then the apple is red | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | The apple is red | modus ponen | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | The apple is red | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | The apple is not red | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The apple is red, because if laura had a secret storage room in her house then the apple is red and laura had a secret storage room in her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then the book is a collection of short stories, and a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, hence the book is a collection of short stories. | If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then the book is a collection of short stories | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The book is a collection of short stories | modus ponen | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The book is a collection of short stories | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The book is not a collection of short stories | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then the book is a collection of short stories, and a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, hence the book is a collection of short stories.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had a life insurance policy then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, and laura had a life insurance policy, thus emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery. | If laura had a life insurance policy then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | Laura had a life insurance policy | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | modus ponen | Laura had a life insurance policy | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a life insurance policy then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, and laura had a life insurance policy, thus emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then the car is parked in the garage, and the car is not parked in the garage, hence the book is not written by a famous author. | If the book is written by a famous author then the car is parked in the garage | The car is not parked in the garage | The book is not written by a famous author | modus tollen | The book is written by a famous author | The car is parked in the garage | The book is not written by a famous author | 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 book is written by a famous author then the car is parked in the garage, and the car is not parked in the garage, hence the book is not written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had scratches on his arms and neck, as if a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | modus ponen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had scratches on his arms and neck, as if a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, as if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park. | If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, as if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, therefore a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned. | If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | modus ponen | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, therefore a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the squirrel then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and the murder weapon was not a baseball bat, which shows that the dog is not barking at the squirrel. | If the dog is barking at the squirrel then the murder weapon was a baseball bat | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the squirrel | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | 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 squirrel then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and the murder weapon was not a baseball bat, which shows that the dog is not 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 the tree is tall then the phone is ringing, and the tree is tall, so the phone is ringing. | If the tree is tall then the phone is ringing | The tree is tall | The phone is ringing | modus ponen | The tree is tall | The phone is ringing | The tree is not tall | The phone is not ringing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is tall then the phone is ringing, and the tree is tall, so the phone is ringing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, which implies that officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene. | If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | modus tollen | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, which implies that officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, which establishes that a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | modus ponen | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, which establishes that a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, so no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment. | If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, so no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which establishes that john davis had a history of stalking other women. | If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then john davis had a history of stalking other women | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | modus ponen | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | 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: ```If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which establishes that john davis had a history of stalking other women.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is drinking from a bottle then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and the baby is drinking from a bottle, so the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary. | If the baby is drinking from a bottle then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The baby is drinking from a bottle | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | modus ponen | The baby is drinking from a bottle | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | 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 baby is drinking from a bottle then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and the baby is drinking from a bottle, so 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|>
|
If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then the movie is a thriller, and the movie is not a thriller, so it can be concluded that laura's dog was not found locked in a closet. | If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then the movie is a thriller | The movie is not a thriller | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | modus tollen | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | The movie is a thriller | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | The movie is not a thriller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then the movie is a thriller, and the movie is not a thriller, so it can be concluded that laura's dog was not found locked in a closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the stranger then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, so the dog is not barking at the stranger. | If the dog is barking at the stranger then john davis had a history of identity theft | John davis did not have a history of identity theft | The dog is not barking at the stranger | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the stranger | John Davis had a history of identity theft | The dog is not barking at the stranger | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the stranger then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, so the dog is not barking at the stranger.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, and no coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, therefore no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | No coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus tollen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, and no coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, therefore no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, so it can be concluded that laura's laptop was not found smashed. | If laura's laptop was found smashed then officer brown discovered a hidden basement | Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | modus tollen | Laura's laptop was found smashed | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, so it can be concluded that laura's laptop was not found smashed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the cat is sleeping in the sun, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, hence the cat is sleeping in the sun. | If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the cat is sleeping in the sun | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | The cat is sleeping in the sun | modus ponen | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | The cat is sleeping in the sun | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the cat is sleeping in the sun, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, hence the cat is sleeping in the sun.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The eiffel tower is not in paris, because if the eiffel tower is in paris then john davis had a history of anger management issues and john davis did not have a history of anger management issues. | If the eiffel tower is in paris then john davis had a history of anger management issues | John davis did not have a history of anger management issues | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | modus tollen | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The eiffel tower is not in paris, because if the eiffel tower is in paris then john davis had a history of anger management issues and john davis did not have a history of anger management issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, which shows that the dog is not barking. | If the dog is barking then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The dog is not barking | modus tollen | The dog is barking | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The dog is not barking | 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 dog is barking then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, which shows that the dog is not 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 the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, so it can be concluded that laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway. | If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | modus ponen | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, so it can be concluded that laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the car then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and the baby is crying in the car, hence a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home. | If the baby is crying in the car then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home | The baby is crying in the car | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | modus ponen | The baby is crying in the car | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | The baby is not crying in the car | 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 baby is crying in the car then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and the baby is crying in the car, hence 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 neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then water is h2o, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, which implies that water is h2o. | If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then water is h2o | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | Water is H2O | modus ponen | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | Water is H2O | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | Water is not H2O | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then water is h2o, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, which implies that water is 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 sun is not shining brightly overhead, because if the sun is shining brightly overhead then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement and the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not shining brightly overhead, because if the sun is shining brightly overhead then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement and the victim's laptop did not contain 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|>
|
John davis had a history of psychiatric issues, because if john davis had recently purchased a firearm then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues and john davis had recently purchased a firearm. | If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues | John davis had recently purchased a firearm | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | modus ponen | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | 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 psychiatric issues, because if john davis had recently purchased a firearm then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues and 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|>
|
Officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store, since if officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder. | If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | modus tollen | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store, since if officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a gas leak was detected in the basement then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, which implies that a gas leak was not detected in the basement. | If a gas leak was detected in the basement then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | modus tollen | A gas leak was detected in the basement | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a gas leak was detected in the basement then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, which implies that a gas leak was not detected in the basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is tall then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which shows that the tree is not tall. | If the tree is tall then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The tree is not tall | modus tollen | The tree is tall | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The tree is not tall | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against 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 tree is tall then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which shows that the tree is not tall.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If dogs are not fish then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, so dogs are fish. | If dogs are not fish then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | No cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | Dogs are fish | modus tollen | Dogs are not fish | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | Dogs are fish | 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: ```If dogs are not fish then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, so dogs are fish.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, because if the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | modus ponen | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | 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: ```Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, because if the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop 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 a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, which shows that the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data. | If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, which shows that the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, which establishes that the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact. | If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | modus ponen | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | 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 victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, which establishes that the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is parked on the street then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, hence the car is not parked on the street. | If the car is parked on the street then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | The car is not parked on the street | modus tollen | The car is parked on the street | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The car is not parked on the street | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is parked on the street then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, hence the car is not parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, which implies that a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction. | If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the baby is teething on a toy | The baby is not teething on a toy | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | modus tollen | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | The baby is teething on a toy | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | The baby is not teething on a toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, which implies that a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, since if the baby is crying in the car then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene and the baby is crying in the car. | If the baby is crying in the car then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The baby is crying in the car | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | modus ponen | The baby is crying in the car | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The baby is not crying in the car | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, since if the baby is crying in the car then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene and the baby is crying in the car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then dogs are not fish, and dogs are fish, which shows that john davis had not recently purchased a firearm. | If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then dogs are not fish | Dogs are fish | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | modus tollen | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | Dogs are not fish | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | Dogs are fish | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then dogs are not fish, and dogs are fish, which shows that john davis had not recently purchased a firearm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cloudy and rainy then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, therefore the weather is not cloudy and rainy. | If the weather is cloudy and rainy then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | modus tollen | The weather is cloudy and rainy | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cloudy and rainy then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, therefore the weather is not 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 had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, which implies that the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools. | If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, which implies that the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a musical film then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, which implies that the movie is not a musical film. | If the movie is a musical film then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The movie is not a musical film | modus tollen | The movie is a musical film | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The movie is not a musical film | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a musical film then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, which implies that the movie is not a musical film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation, as if the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the book is written by a famous author and the book is not written by a famous author. | If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the book is written by a famous author | The book is not written by a famous author | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | modus tollen | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The book is written by a famous author | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation, as if the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the book is written by a famous author and the book is not written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a comedy, as if the movie is a comedy then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway. | If the movie is a comedy then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | The movie is not a comedy | modus tollen | The movie is a comedy | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | The movie is not a comedy | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a comedy, as if the movie is a comedy then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway.```<|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 the weather is nice, and the tree is shedding leaves, so the weather is nice. | If the tree is shedding leaves then the weather is nice | The tree is shedding leaves | The weather is nice | modus ponen | The tree is shedding leaves | The weather is nice | The tree is not shedding leaves | The weather is not nice | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is shedding leaves then the weather is nice, and the tree is shedding leaves, so the weather is nice.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the book is interesting, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, which shows that the book is interesting. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the book is interesting | A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | The book is interesting | modus ponen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | The book is interesting | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | The book is not interesting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the book is interesting, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, which shows that the book is interesting.```<|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 jewelry box was not emptied, because if laura's jewelry box was emptied then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist. | If laura's jewelry box was emptied then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | modus tollen | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's jewelry box was not emptied, because if laura's jewelry box was emptied then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, since if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime. | If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | modus tollen | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, since if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the pizza is hot, and a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, so the pizza is hot. | If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the pizza is hot | A fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar | The pizza is hot | modus ponen | A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar | The pizza is hot | A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar | The pizza is not hot | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the pizza is hot, and a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, so the pizza is hot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.