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 weather is cold and rainy then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, which establishes that the weather is not cold and rainy. | If the weather is cold and rainy then the sun is setting slowly | The sun is not setting slowly | The weather is not cold and rainy | modus tollen | The weather is cold and rainy | The sun is setting slowly | The weather is not cold and rainy | The sun is not setting slowly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and rainy then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, which establishes that the weather is not cold and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the baby is teething, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, therefore the baby is teething. | If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the baby is teething | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The baby is teething | modus ponen | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The baby is teething | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | 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 a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the baby is teething, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, therefore 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|>
|
If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the weather is nice, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, which shows that the weather is nice. | If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the weather is nice | Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The weather is nice | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The weather is nice | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | The weather is not nice | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the weather is nice, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, which shows that the weather is nice.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the sun is shining, which establishes that the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail. | If the sun is shining then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The sun is shining | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | modus ponen | The sun is shining | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The sun is not shining | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the sun is shining, which establishes that the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail.```<|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 neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, which establishes that the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information. | If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | modus tollen | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, which establishes that the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then the tree is shedding leaves, and the book is written by a famous author, which implies that the tree is shedding leaves. | If the book is written by a famous author then the tree is shedding leaves | The book is written by a famous author | The tree is shedding leaves | modus ponen | The book is written by a famous author | The tree is shedding leaves | The book is not written by a famous author | The tree is not shedding leaves | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then the tree is shedding leaves, and the book is written by a famous author, which implies that the tree is shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then john davis had bruises on his arms, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, therefore john davis had bruises on his arms. | If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then john davis had bruises on his arms | John davis had a cache of illegal firearms | John Davis had bruises on his arms | modus ponen | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | John Davis had bruises on his arms | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then john davis had bruises on his arms, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, therefore john davis had bruises on his arms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then laura's house was booby-trapped, and laura's house was not booby-trapped, so it can be concluded that detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park. | If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then laura's house was booby-trapped | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | modus tollen | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Laura's house was booby-trapped | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then laura's house was booby-trapped, and laura's house was not booby-trapped, so it can be concluded that 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|>
|
John davis did not have a history of stalking other women, since if john davis had a history of stalking other women 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. | If john davis had a history of stalking other women 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 | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | 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: ```John davis did not have a history of stalking other women, since if john davis had a history of stalking other women 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, since if laura's laptop was found smashed then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard and laura's laptop was found smashed. | If laura's laptop was found smashed then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Laura's laptop was found smashed | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | modus ponen | Laura's laptop was found smashed | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, since if laura's laptop was found smashed then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard and laura's laptop was found smashed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, which shows that the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | modus ponen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | 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 blood was found on emily's clothing then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, which shows that the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage, thus surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | modus tollen | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage, thus surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, thus no bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus tollen | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, thus no bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|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 richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and the baby is playing with toys, so it can be concluded that richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account. | If the baby is playing with toys then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | The baby is playing with toys | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | modus ponen | The baby is playing with toys | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | The baby is not playing with toys | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | 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 richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and the baby is playing with toys, so it can be concluded that richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, thus the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain. | If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | modus tollen | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, thus the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, hence a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene. | If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then the sun is setting slowly | The sun is not setting slowly | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | modus tollen | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | The sun is setting slowly | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | The sun is not setting slowly | 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 the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, hence a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, because if a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information and the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information. | If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | 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 | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, because if a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information and the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, therefore a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine. | If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | modus ponen | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, therefore a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, so it can be concluded that the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors. | If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | 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 victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, so it can be concluded that the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething on a toy then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, which shows that the baby is not teething on a toy. | If the baby is teething on a toy then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | A gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession | The baby is not teething on a toy | modus tollen | The baby is teething on a toy | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | The baby is not teething on a toy | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething on a toy then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, which shows that the baby is not teething on a toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, which establishes that emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder. | If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | modus tollen | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, which establishes that emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day 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|>
|
A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, since if the book is a mystery novel then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet and the book is a mystery novel. | If the book is a mystery novel then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The book is a mystery novel | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | modus ponen | The book is a mystery novel | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The book is not a mystery novel | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, since if the book is a mystery novel then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet and the book is a mystery novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect. | If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sally is older than john, because if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then sally is older than john and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization. | If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then sally is older than john | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | Sally is older than John | modus ponen | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | Sally is older than John | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | Sally is not older than John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sally is older than john, because if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then sally is older than john and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the cat is grooming itself, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, therefore the cat is grooming itself. | If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the cat is grooming itself | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The cat is grooming itself | modus ponen | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The cat is grooming itself | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The cat is not grooming itself | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the cat is grooming itself, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, therefore the cat is grooming itself.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, because if a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | 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: ```No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, because if a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then sally is older than john, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, so sally is older than john. | If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then sally is older than john | John davis had scratches on his arms and neck | Sally is older than John | modus ponen | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | Sally is older than John | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | Sally is not older than John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then sally is older than john, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, so sally is older than john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
It is not raining today, because if it is raining today then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders and john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders. | If it is raining today then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders | John davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | It is not raining today | modus tollen | It is raining today | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | It is not raining today | 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: ```It is not raining today, because if it is raining today then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders and john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park. | If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | modus tollen | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, which establishes that surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store. | If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, which establishes that surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near 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 the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and laura had a secret storage room in her house, which shows that the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased. | If laura had a secret storage room in her house then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | modus ponen | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a secret storage room in her house then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and laura had a secret storage room in her house, which shows that the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, as if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder. | If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | modus ponen | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before 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 the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a secret storage unit, since if the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then john davis had a secret storage unit and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities. | If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then john davis had a secret storage unit | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | John Davis had a secret storage unit | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | John Davis had a secret storage unit | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | 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, since if the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then john davis had a secret storage unit and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with a toy car then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, and the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns, which establishes that the baby is not playing with a toy car. | If the baby is playing with a toy car then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The baby is not playing with a toy car | modus tollen | The baby is playing with a toy car | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The baby is not playing with a toy car | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | 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 a toy car then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, and the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns, which establishes that the baby is not playing with a toy 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 hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death, hence no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office. | If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death | Sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | modus tollen | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death, hence no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, since if a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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. | If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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 | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | modus tollen | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | 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: ```No threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, since if a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, as if a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair. | If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | modus ponen | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, as if a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, which shows that the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, which shows that the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not on the table, since if the book is on the table then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask. | If the book is on the table then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The book is not on the table | modus tollen | The book is on the table | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The book is not on the table | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not on the table, since if the book is on the table then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then a homeless 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 no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene. | If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene 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 | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | modus tollen | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | 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 mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene 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 no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, since if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox. | If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | A handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | modus ponen | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | 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: ```Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, since if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the book is on the nightstand, and the book is not on the nightstand, which shows that laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the book is on the nightstand | The book is not on the nightstand | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | modus tollen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | The book is on the nightstand | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | The book is not on the nightstand | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the book is on the nightstand, and the book is not on the nightstand, which shows that laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a history of stalking laura, since if the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then john davis had a history of stalking laura and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation. | If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then john davis had a history of stalking laura | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | modus ponen | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a history of stalking laura, since if the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then john davis had a history of stalking laura 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 victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, therefore the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime. | If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | modus ponen | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, therefore the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit, thus emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft. | If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | John davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | modus tollen | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit, thus emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, since if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene. | If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | modus ponen | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, since if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, which implies that the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard. | If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | modus ponen | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, which implies that the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, so no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet. | If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then john davis had a history of identity theft | John davis did not have a history of identity theft | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | modus tollen | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | John Davis had a history of identity theft | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, so no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information, since if the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene and a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene. | If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | modus tollen | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from 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: ```The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information, since if the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene and a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, since if john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the movie is a comedy-drama and the movie is not a comedy-drama. | If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the movie is a comedy-drama | The movie is not a comedy-drama | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | modus tollen | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | The movie is a comedy-drama | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | The movie is not a comedy-drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, since if john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the movie is a comedy-drama and the movie is not a comedy-drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, which establishes that a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | modus tollen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, which establishes that a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, so surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house. | If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | modus ponen | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, so surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, because if a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery and the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery. | If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | modus tollen | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, because if a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery and the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during 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 a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene, which establishes that no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene, which establishes that no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit, therefore a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | John davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | modus tollen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit, therefore a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then laura's wedding ring is missing, and laura's wedding ring is not missing, which implies that no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster. | If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then laura's wedding ring is missing | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | modus tollen | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Laura's wedding ring is missing | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | 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: ```If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then laura's wedding ring is missing, and laura's wedding ring is not missing, which implies that no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, as if a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and no bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then a bloody footprint was found in the living room | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, as if a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and no bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|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 laura had installed a home security system, and laura had not installed a home security system, 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 laura had installed a home security system | Laura had not installed a home security system | 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 | Laura had installed a home security system | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | Laura had not installed a home security system | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then laura had installed a home security system, and laura had not installed a home security system, 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 detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, which establishes that a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment. | If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | modus ponen | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, which establishes that a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, so the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead. | If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | modus tollen | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, so the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the baby is crawling towards the door, and the baby is not crawling towards the door, therefore a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair. | If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the baby is crawling towards the door | The baby is not crawling towards the door | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | modus tollen | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | The baby is crawling towards the door | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | The baby is not crawling towards the door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the baby is crawling towards the door, and the baby is not crawling towards the door, therefore a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, thus the baby is not crawling. | If the baby is crawling then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | The baby is not crawling | modus tollen | The baby is crawling | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | The baby is not crawling | 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 the baby is crawling then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, thus the baby is not crawling.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, because if the baby is crawling then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim and the baby is crawling. | If the baby is crawling then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The baby is crawling | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | modus ponen | The baby is crawling | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The baby is not crawling | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, because if the baby is crawling then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim and 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 the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, which shows that the baby is crawling towards the cat. | If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the baby is crawling towards the cat | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The baby is crawling towards the cat | modus ponen | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The baby is crawling towards the cat | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, which shows that the baby is crawling towards the cat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, hence richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions. | If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | modus ponen | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, hence richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment, as if the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information. | If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | modus tollen | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | 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: ```The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment, as if the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, because if the victim's name is sarah mitchell then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily and the victim's name is sarah mitchell. | If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | The victim's name is sarah mitchell | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | modus ponen | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | 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: ```Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, because if the victim's name is sarah mitchell then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily and 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|>
|
If the movie is a drama then water is h2o, and the movie is a drama, which implies that water is h2o. | If the movie is a drama then water is h2o | The movie is a drama | Water is H2O | modus ponen | The movie is a drama | Water is H2O | The movie is not a drama | Water is not H2O | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a drama then water is h2o, and the movie is a drama, which implies that water is h2o.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's garage door was left open then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, therefore laura's garage door was not left open. | If laura's garage door was left open then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Laura's garage door was not left open | modus tollen | Laura's garage door was left open | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Laura's garage door was not left open | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's garage door was left open then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, therefore laura's garage door was not left open.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, because if the sun is shining brightly overhead then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder and the sun is shining brightly overhead. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The sun is shining brightly overhead | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | modus ponen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, because if the sun is shining brightly overhead then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder and the sun is shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, as if surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery and surveillance footage shows 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 surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, as if surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery and 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|>
|
If the book is a bestseller then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, and the book is a bestseller, which establishes that detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter. | If the book is a bestseller then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter | The book is a bestseller | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | modus ponen | The book is a bestseller | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | The book is not a bestseller | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a bestseller then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, and the book is a bestseller, which establishes that detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, which establishes that no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house. | If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | modus tollen | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, which establishes that no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, which shows that a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene. | If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | modus ponen | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | 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: ```If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, which shows that a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is setting slowly, because if the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the sun is setting slowly and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data. | If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the sun is setting slowly | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The sun is setting slowly | modus ponen | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The sun is setting slowly | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | The sun is not setting slowly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is setting slowly, because if the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the sun is setting slowly and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, hence the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder. | If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | modus ponen | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, hence the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene 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 laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, hence the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard. | If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | modus ponen | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, hence the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, since if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, since if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, since if officer brown discovered a hidden basement then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine and officer brown discovered a hidden basement. | If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | Officer brown discovered a hidden basement | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | modus ponen | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, since if officer brown discovered a hidden basement then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine and officer brown discovered a hidden basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a thriller then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, which shows that the movie is not a thriller. | If the movie is a thriller then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | The movie is not a thriller | modus tollen | The movie is a thriller | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | The movie is not a thriller | 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: ```If the movie is a thriller then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, which shows that the movie is not a thriller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, because if emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house and a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house. | If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house | A neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | modus tollen | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, because if emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house and a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, since if a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder and emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | modus tollen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | 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: ```No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, since if a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder and emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, therefore laura's phone records do not show calls to 911. | If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then john davis had a history of stalking laura | John davis did not have a history of stalking laura | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | modus tollen | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, therefore laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky 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, so it can be concluded that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky 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 sun is not setting slowly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | 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 sun is setting slowly in the sky 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, so it can be concluded that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then the car is a sedan, and the car is not a sedan, so it can be concluded that the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery. | If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then the car is a sedan | The car is not a sedan | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | modus tollen | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | The car is a sedan | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | 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 alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then the car is a sedan, and the car is not a sedan, so it can be concluded that the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity 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 the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, which implies that a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone. | If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | modus ponen | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, which implies that a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, so a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | modus ponen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | 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 laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, so 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|>
|
A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, as if laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently. | If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | modus ponen | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, as if laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently.```<|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 the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, which implies that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment. | If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, which implies that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is parked on the street then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the cat is not sleeping on the couch, so it can be concluded that the car is not parked on the street. | If the car is parked on the street then the cat is sleeping on the couch | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | The car is not parked on the street | modus tollen | The car is parked on the street | The cat is sleeping on the couch | The car is not parked on the street | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is parked on the street then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the cat is not sleeping on the couch, so it can be concluded that the car is not parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of identity theft then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and john davis had a history of identity theft, which shows that the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses. | If john davis had a history of identity theft then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | John davis had a history of identity theft | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of identity theft | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of identity theft then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and john davis had a history of identity theft, which shows that the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Water is not h2o, because if water is h2o then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter and detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter. | If water is h2o then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter | Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter | Water is not H2O | modus tollen | Water is H2O | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | Water is not H2O | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Water is not h2o, because if water is h2o then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter and detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, as if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store and officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store. | If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | Officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus tollen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, as if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store and officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, which implies that laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions. | If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | modus ponen | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, which implies that laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, which establishes that footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene. | If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | modus tollen | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, which establishes that footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, since if a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues and john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues. | If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues | John davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | modus tollen | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, since if a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues and john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the movie is a comedy, and the movie is not a comedy, hence officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store. | If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the movie is a comedy | The movie is not a comedy | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | modus tollen | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The movie is a comedy | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The movie is not a comedy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the movie is a comedy, and the movie is not a comedy, hence officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, hence the baby is crawling towards the toy. | If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the baby is crawling towards the toy | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The baby is crawling towards the toy | modus ponen | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, hence the baby is crawling towards the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the computer is on, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, which shows that the computer is on. | If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the computer is on | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | The computer is on | modus ponen | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | The computer is on | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | The computer is not on | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the computer is on, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, which shows that the computer is on.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, which implies that a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning. | If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | modus ponen | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | 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 emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, which implies that a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.