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 the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, thus the dog is barking at the neighbors. | If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the dog is barking at the neighbors | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The dog is barking at the neighbors | modus ponen | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The dog is barking at the neighbors | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, thus the dog is barking at the neighbors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, and the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, thus surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery. | If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | modus ponen | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, and the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, thus surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, because if a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder. | If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | modus ponen | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, because if a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the victim's name is laura martinez, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, so the victim's name is laura martinez. | If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the victim's name is laura martinez | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | modus ponen | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the victim's name is laura martinez, and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, so the victim's name is laura martinez.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, and emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which implies that surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery. | If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, and emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which implies that surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of substance abuse then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer, thus john davis did not have a history of substance abuse. | If john davis had a history of substance abuse then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of substance abuse then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer, thus john davis did not have a history of substance abuse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the baby is crying loudly, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, hence the baby is crying loudly. | If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the baby is crying loudly | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The baby is crying loudly | modus ponen | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The baby is crying loudly | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The baby is not crying loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the baby is crying loudly, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, hence the baby is 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|>
|
John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, as if a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | modus ponen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, as if a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the baby is teething, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, hence the baby is teething. | If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the baby is teething | The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The baby is teething | modus ponen | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The baby is teething | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | The baby is not teething | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the baby is teething, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, hence the baby is teething.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, as if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder and emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder. | If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | modus tollen | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, as if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder and emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the car is parked in the garage, and the car is not parked in the garage, which establishes that the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder. | If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the car is parked in the garage | The car is not parked in the garage | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | modus tollen | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | The car is parked in the garage | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | The car is not parked in the garage | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the car is parked in the garage, and the car is not parked in the garage, which establishes that the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a sports film then the car is a sedan, and the movie is a sports film, which implies that the car is a sedan. | If the movie is a sports film then the car is a sedan | The movie is a sports film | The car is a sedan | modus ponen | The movie is a sports film | The car is a sedan | The movie is not a sports film | The car is not a sedan | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a sports film then the car is a sedan, and the movie is a sports film, which implies that the car is a sedan.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is eating food then the dog is barking at the door, and the dog is not barking at the door, therefore the cat is not eating food. | If the cat is eating food then the dog is barking at the door | The dog is not barking at the door | The cat is not eating food | modus tollen | The cat is eating food | The dog is barking at the door | The cat is not eating food | The dog is not barking at the door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is eating food then the dog is barking at the door, and the dog is not barking at the door, therefore the cat is not eating food.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, because if the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation. | If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | modus ponen | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, because if the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, therefore the victim's name is sarah mitchell. | If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then the victim's name is sarah mitchell | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | modus ponen | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, therefore the victim's name is sarah mitchell.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, as if laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone and laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident. | If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | modus ponen | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, as if laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone and laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, and footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene, thus no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene | Footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus tollen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, and footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene, thus 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|>
|
The sun is not setting, since if the sun is setting then laura's passport is missing and laura's passport is not missing. | If the sun is setting then laura's passport is missing | Laura's passport is not missing | The sun is not setting | modus tollen | The sun is setting | Laura's passport is missing | The sun is not setting | Laura's passport is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not setting, since if the sun is setting then laura's passport is missing and laura's passport 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 the movie is a drama then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, which implies that the movie is not a drama. | If the movie is a drama then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | The movie is not a drama | modus tollen | The movie is a drama | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | The movie is not a drama | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a drama then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, which implies that the movie is not a drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, as if detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the book is a romance novel and the book is not a romance novel. | If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the book is a romance novel | The book is not a romance novel | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | modus tollen | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The book is a romance novel | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The book is not a romance novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, as if detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the book is a romance novel and the book is not a romance novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is exciting, because if john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the movie is exciting and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone. | If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the movie is exciting | John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | The movie is exciting | modus ponen | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The movie is exciting | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The movie is not exciting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is exciting, because if john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the movie is exciting and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, as if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily. | If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus ponen | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, as if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the squirrel then the baby is crawling towards the door, and the baby is not crawling towards the door, therefore the dog is not barking at the squirrel. | If the dog is barking at the squirrel then the baby is crawling towards the door | The baby is not crawling towards the door | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the squirrel | The baby is crawling towards the door | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | The baby is not crawling towards the door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the squirrel then the baby is crawling towards the door, and the baby is not crawling towards the door, therefore 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 a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, thus a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store. | If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | modus ponen | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, thus a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is drinking from a bottle then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and the baby is drinking from a bottle, which establishes that laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats. | If the baby is drinking from a bottle then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The baby is drinking from a bottle | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | modus ponen | The baby is drinking from a bottle | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is drinking from a bottle then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and the baby is drinking from a bottle, which establishes that laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, since if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then water is h2o and water is not h2o. | If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then water is h2o | Water is not h2o | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | modus tollen | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | Water is H2O | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | 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: ```The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, since if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then water is h2o and water is not h2o.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store. | If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | 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 surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, thus john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | modus ponen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, thus john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a hybrid then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and the car is a hybrid, so the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information. | If the car is a hybrid then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The car is a hybrid | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | modus ponen | The car is a hybrid | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The car is not a hybrid | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a hybrid then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and the car is a hybrid, so the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's laptop was found smashed, because if a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then laura's laptop was found smashed and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door. | If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then laura's laptop was found smashed | A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door | Laura's laptop was found smashed | modus ponen | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | Laura's laptop was found smashed | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's laptop was found smashed, because if a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then laura's laptop was found smashed and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's name is laura martinez 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 establishes that the victim's name is not laura martinez. | If the victim's name is laura martinez 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 name is not Laura Martinez | modus tollen | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | 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 name is laura martinez 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 establishes that the victim's name is not laura martinez.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura did not have a life insurance policy, since if laura had a life insurance policy then laura's wedding ring is missing and laura's wedding ring is not missing. | If laura had a life insurance policy then laura's wedding ring is missing | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | modus tollen | Laura had a life insurance policy | Laura's wedding ring is missing | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura did not have a life insurance policy, since if laura had a life insurance policy then laura's wedding ring is missing and 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|>
|
Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, because if detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily and sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily. | If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | modus tollen | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, because if detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily and sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, hence a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession. | If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | modus ponen | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | 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 handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, hence a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the car then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, and a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, hence the baby is not crying in the car. | If the baby is crying in the car then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | The baby is not crying in the car | modus tollen | The baby is crying in the car | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | The baby is not crying in the car | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | 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 forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, and a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, hence the baby is not 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 a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, which shows that emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder. | If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | modus ponen | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | 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 a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, which shows that emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems, as if the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then laura had recently changed her social media passwords and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords. | If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems, as if the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then laura had recently changed her social media passwords and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then the dog is barking at the television, and the dog is not barking at the television, so the dog is not barking at the mailman. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then the dog is barking at the television | The dog is not barking at the television | The dog is not barking at the mailman | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is barking at the television | The dog is not barking at the mailman | The dog is not barking at the television | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then the dog is barking at the television, and the dog is not barking at the television, so the dog is not barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the nightstand then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and the book is on the nightstand, hence laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident. | If the book is on the nightstand then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | The book is on the nightstand | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | modus ponen | The book is on the nightstand | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | The book is not on the nightstand | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the nightstand then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and the book is on the nightstand, hence laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, which implies that john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone. | If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | modus ponen | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, which implies that john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, which implies that the dog is not barking. | If the dog is barking then laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | The dog is not barking | modus tollen | The dog is barking | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The dog is not barking | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, which implies 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|>
|
Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, since if officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home and no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home. | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | modus tollen | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, since if officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home and no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect'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|>
|
The weather is not hot and humid, since if the weather is hot and humid 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. | If the weather is hot and humid 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 | The weather is not hot and humid | modus tollen | The weather is hot and humid | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The weather is not hot and humid | 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: ```The weather is not hot and humid, since if the weather is hot and humid 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is moving then the cat is black, and the cat is not black, thus the car is not moving. | If the car is moving then the cat is black | The cat is not black | The car is not moving | modus tollen | The car is moving | The cat is black | The car is not moving | The cat is not black | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is moving then the cat is black, and the cat is not black, thus the car is not moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, which shows that john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents. | If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | modus ponen | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, which shows that john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor heard a gunshot then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, which implies that a neighbor did not hear a gunshot. | If a neighbor heard a gunshot then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | modus tollen | A neighbor heard a gunshot | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor heard a gunshot then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, which implies that a neighbor did not hear a gunshot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the squirrel then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, therefore the dog is not barking at the squirrel. | If the dog is barking at the squirrel then officer brown discovered a hidden basement | Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the squirrel | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the squirrel then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, therefore 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 suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, and a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, so the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon. | If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment | A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, and a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, so the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching 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 emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then laura had a life insurance policy, and laura did not have a life insurance policy, thus emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then laura had a life insurance policy | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | modus tollen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | Laura had a life insurance policy | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then laura had a life insurance policy, and laura did not have a life insurance policy, thus emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is shedding leaves 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, hence the tree is not shedding leaves. | If the tree is shedding leaves 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 tree is not shedding leaves | modus tollen | The tree is shedding leaves | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The tree is not shedding leaves | 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 tree is shedding leaves 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, hence the tree is not shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, which establishes that the baby is not teething. | If the baby is teething then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | The baby is not teething | modus tollen | The baby is teething | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The baby is not teething | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, which establishes that the baby is not teething.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, hence a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder. | If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | modus ponen | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior 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 a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, hence a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, which implies that the dog is not barking at the mailman. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | The dog is not barking at the mailman | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mailman | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | The dog is not barking at the mailman | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, which implies that the dog is not barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, so laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed. | If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | modus ponen | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | 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 a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, so laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, as if john davis had a history of substance abuse then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene and john davis had a history of substance abuse. | If john davis had a history of substance abuse then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | John davis had a history of substance abuse | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, as if john davis had a history of substance abuse then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene and john davis had a history of substance abuse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the book is a memoir, and the book is not a memoir, which implies that the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim. | If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the book is a memoir | The book is not a memoir | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The book is a memoir | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The book is not a memoir | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the book is a memoir, and the book is not a memoir, which implies that the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, which shows that the sun is shining brightly in the sky. | If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the sun is shining brightly in the sky | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | modus ponen | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, which shows that the sun is shining brightly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a gas leak was detected in the basement, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, so a gas leak was detected in the basement. | If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a gas leak was detected in the basement | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | A gas leak was detected in the basement | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | A gas leak was detected in the basement | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a gas leak was detected in the basement, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, so a gas leak was 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|>
|
Laura's jewelry box was not emptied, as if laura's jewelry box was emptied then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate and emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate. | If laura's jewelry box was emptied then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | modus tollen | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's jewelry box was not emptied, as if laura's jewelry box was emptied then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate and 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 emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the suspect's name is john davis, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, which establishes that the suspect's name is john davis. | If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the suspect's name is john davis | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The suspect's name is John Davis | modus ponen | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The suspect's name is John Davis | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The suspect's name is not John Davis | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the suspect's name is john davis, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, which establishes that the suspect's name is john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account, since if richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park. | If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | modus tollen | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account, since if richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the baby is crawling, and a bloody footprint was found in the living room, thus the baby is crawling. | If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the baby is crawling | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | The baby is crawling | modus ponen | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | The baby is crawling | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | The baby is not crawling | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the baby is crawling, and a bloody footprint was found in the living room, thus the baby is crawling.```<|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 restraining order violation in the past then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, and the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement, therefore john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past. | If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | modus tollen | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | 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: ```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, and the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement, therefore john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then 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, thus john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape. | If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape 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 | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | modus tollen | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | 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 john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape 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, thus john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, so it can be concluded that a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom. | If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | modus ponen | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, so it can be concluded that a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, which establishes that a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder. | If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | modus tollen | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, which establishes that a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, so it can be concluded that sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy. | If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | John davis had a history of psychiatric issues | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | 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 john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, so it can be concluded that sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, which implies that a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder. | If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | modus ponen | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, which implies that a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the dog is barking at the door, and the dog is not barking at the door, thus the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest. | If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the dog is barking at the door | The dog is not barking at the door | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | modus tollen | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The dog is barking at the door | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The dog is not barking at the door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the dog is barking at the door, and the dog is not barking at the door, thus the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, since if the murder weapon was a baseball bat then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster and the murder weapon was a baseball bat. | If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | modus ponen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, since if the murder weapon was a baseball bat then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster and the murder weapon was a baseball bat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, thus the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals. | If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, thus the suspect had no 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|>
|
The weather is hot and humid, as if officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the weather is hot and humid and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store. | If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the weather is hot and humid | Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The weather is hot and humid | modus ponen | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The weather is hot and humid | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The weather is not hot and humid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The weather is hot and humid, as if officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the weather is hot and humid and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had a secret storage room in her house then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft, which shows that laura did not have a secret storage room in her house. | If laura had a secret storage room in her house then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | modus tollen | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | 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 secret storage room in her house then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft, which shows that laura did not have a secret storage room in her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is sleeping then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, therefore the baby is not sleeping. | If the baby is sleeping then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home | The baby is not sleeping | modus tollen | The baby is sleeping | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | The baby is not sleeping | 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 sleeping then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, therefore the baby is not sleeping.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, thus the sun is shining brightly overhead. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the sun is shining brightly overhead | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The sun is shining brightly overhead | modus ponen | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The sun is shining brightly overhead | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | 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 the sun is shining brightly overhead, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, thus the sun is shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, because if emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then laura's social media accounts were hacked and laura's social media accounts were not hacked. | If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then laura's social media accounts were hacked | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | modus tollen | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, because if emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then laura's social media accounts were hacked and laura's social media accounts were not hacked.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with toys then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker, so the baby is not playing with toys. | If the baby is playing with toys then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | The baby is not playing with toys | modus tollen | The baby is playing with toys | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | The baby is not playing with toys | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with toys then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker, so the baby is not playing with toys.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring loudly then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and the cat is purring loudly, which shows that laura's medical records were accessed without authorization. | If the cat is purring loudly then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The cat is purring loudly | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | modus ponen | The cat is purring loudly | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The cat is not purring loudly | 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 the cat is purring loudly then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and the cat is purring loudly, which shows 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 detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and laura did not have a secret storage room in her house, therefore detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard. | If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then laura had a secret storage room in her house | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | modus tollen | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | 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 detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and laura did not have a secret storage room in her house, therefore detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's wedding ring is missing then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, and john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders, hence laura's wedding ring is not missing. | If laura's wedding ring is missing then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders | John davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | modus tollen | Laura's wedding ring is missing | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's wedding ring is missing then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, and john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders, hence 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|>
|
No homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, because if a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the baby is crying and the baby is not crying. | If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the baby is crying | The baby is not crying | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus tollen | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | The baby is crying | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | 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: ```No homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, because if a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the baby is crying and the baby is not crying.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then the book is on the bestseller list, and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, so it can be concluded that the book is on the bestseller list. | If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then the book is on the bestseller list | A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | The book is on the bestseller list | modus ponen | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | The book is on the bestseller list | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | The book is not on the bestseller list | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then the book is on the bestseller list, and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, so it can be concluded that the book is on the bestseller list.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the car is a hybrid, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, thus the car is a hybrid. | If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the car is a hybrid | The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | The car is a hybrid | modus ponen | The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | The car is a hybrid | The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder | The car is not a hybrid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the car is a hybrid, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, thus the car is a hybrid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, because if the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user. | If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus ponen | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, because if the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user.```<|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 the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing. | If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | modus tollen | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | The victim did not have a restraining order 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 a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is drinking from a bottle then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, and no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, which shows that the baby is not drinking from a bottle. | If the baby is drinking from a bottle then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | modus tollen | The baby is drinking from a bottle | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is drinking from a bottle then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, and no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, which shows that the baby is not drinking from a bottle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, and a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, hence a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | A threatening message was left on laura's answering machine | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | modus ponen | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, and a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, hence a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping soundly then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the cat is sleeping soundly, which shows that the dog is barking at the neighbors. | If the cat is sleeping soundly then the dog is barking at the neighbors | The cat is sleeping soundly | The dog is barking at the neighbors | modus ponen | The cat is sleeping soundly | The dog is barking at the neighbors | The cat is not sleeping soundly | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | 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 the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the cat is sleeping soundly, which shows that the dog is barking at the neighbors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, since if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder and emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder. | If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, since if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder and 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|>
|
If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the water is warm, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, therefore the water is warm. | If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the water is warm | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The water is warm | modus ponen | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The water is warm | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | 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 the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then the water is warm, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, therefore 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 hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the sky is blue, and the sky is not blue, which implies that no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the sky is blue | The sky is not blue | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | modus tollen | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The sky is blue | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The sky is not blue | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the sky is blue, and the sky is not blue, which implies that no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, which shows that the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user. | If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, which shows that the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user.```<|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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, which implies that laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door. | If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | modus ponen | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, which implies that laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then john davis had a history of financial problems, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, therefore john davis had a history of financial problems. | If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then john davis had a history of financial problems | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | John Davis had a history of financial problems | modus ponen | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | John Davis had a history of financial problems | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then john davis had a history of financial problems, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, therefore john davis had a history of financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the weather is cold and snowy, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, thus the weather is cold and snowy. | If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the weather is cold and snowy | A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | The weather is cold and snowy | modus ponen | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The weather is cold and snowy | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The weather is not cold and snowy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the weather is cold and snowy, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, thus the weather is cold and snowy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not a romance novel, since if the book is a romance novel then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement. | If the book is a romance novel then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | The book is not a romance novel | modus tollen | The book is a romance novel | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | The book is not a romance novel | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not a romance novel, since if the book is a romance novel then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, because if a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence and a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house. | If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | modus ponen | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, because if a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence and a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a secret storage unit, because if the book is on the nightstand then john davis had a secret storage unit and the book is on the nightstand. | If the book is on the nightstand then john davis had a secret storage unit | The book is on the nightstand | John Davis had a secret storage unit | modus ponen | The book is on the nightstand | John Davis had a secret storage unit | The book is not on the nightstand | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | 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 secret storage unit, because if the book is on the nightstand then john davis had a secret storage unit and the book is on the nightstand.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the nightstand then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and the book is on the nightstand, hence a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning. | If the book is on the nightstand then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | The book is on the nightstand | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | modus ponen | The book is on the nightstand | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | The book is not on the nightstand | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the nightstand then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and the book is on the nightstand, hence a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of financial problems then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, and richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery, which shows that john davis did not have a history of financial problems. | If john davis had a history of financial problems then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery | Richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of financial problems | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for 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 john davis had a history of financial problems then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, and richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery, which shows that john davis did not have a history of financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.