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 murder weapon was a baseball bat then the sun is shining, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, thus the sun is shining. | If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the sun is shining | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | The sun is shining | modus ponen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | The sun is shining | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | The sun is not shining | 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 baseball bat then the sun is shining, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, thus the sun is shining.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, since if a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim and the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim. | If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | modus tollen | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | 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: ```A gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, since if a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim and the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's passport is missing, as if the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then laura's passport is missing and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals. | If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then laura's passport is missing | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | Laura's passport is missing | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | Laura's passport is missing | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | Laura's passport is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's passport is missing, as if the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then laura's passport is missing and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, and laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently, hence the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary. | If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | modus tollen | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, and laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently, hence the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, which establishes that a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office. | If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | modus ponen | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, which establishes that a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim, as if the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the cat is purring loudly and the cat is not purring loudly. | If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the cat is purring loudly | The cat is not purring loudly | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | modus tollen | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The cat is purring loudly | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | The cat is not purring loudly | 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 did not hint at a grudge against the victim, as if the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the cat is purring loudly and the cat is not purring loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, as if a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park and no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park. | If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | No witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | modus tollen | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, as if a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park and 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|>
|
John davis did not have a history of stalking laura, as if john davis had a history of stalking laura 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. | If john davis had a history of stalking laura 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 | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | 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: ```John davis did not have a history of stalking laura, as if john davis had a history of stalking laura 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the football is round then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and the football is round, which establishes that a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby. | If the football is round then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The football is round | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | modus ponen | The football is round | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The football is not round | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the football is round then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and the football is round, which establishes that a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.```<|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 stalking laura then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and john davis had a history of stalking laura, so laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door. | If john davis had a history of stalking laura then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | John davis had a history of stalking laura | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of stalking laura then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and john davis had a history of stalking laura, so laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, since if the car is moving then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack and the car is moving. | If the car is moving then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | The car is moving | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | modus ponen | The car is moving | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | The car is not moving | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, since if the car is moving then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack and the car is moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman, since if the dog is barking at the mailman then the dog is barking at the neighbors and the dog is not barking at the neighbors. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then the dog is barking at the neighbors | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | The dog is not barking at the mailman | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is barking at the neighbors | The dog is not barking at the mailman | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is not barking at the mailman, since if the dog is barking at the mailman then the dog is barking at the neighbors and the dog is not barking at the neighbors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking at the mailman, because if the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the dog is barking at the mailman and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses. | If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the dog is barking at the mailman | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The dog is barking at the mailman | modus ponen | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The dog is barking at the mailman | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | The dog is not barking at the mailman | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking at the mailman, because if the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the dog is barking at the mailman and 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|>
|
If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the book is on the bestseller list, and the book is not on the bestseller list, therefore john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape. | If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the book is on the bestseller list | The book is not on the bestseller list | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | modus tollen | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The book is on the bestseller list | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | The book is not on the bestseller list | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the book is on the bestseller list, and the book is not on the bestseller list, therefore john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the sun is shining through the window, and the sun is not shining through the window, so laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the sun is shining through the window | The sun is not shining through the window | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | modus tollen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | The sun is shining through the window | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | The sun is not shining through the window | 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 the sun is shining through the window, and the sun is not shining through the window, so laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of stalking other women then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, and laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, which implies that john davis did not have a history of stalking other women. | If john davis had a history of stalking other women then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of stalking other women then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, and laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, which implies that john davis did not have a history of stalking other women.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, since if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions. | If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | modus ponen | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, since if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, therefore john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe. | If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | modus ponen | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, therefore john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring contentedly then the baby is crying in the stroller, and the baby is not crying in the stroller, which establishes that the cat is not purring contentedly. | If the cat is purring contentedly then the baby is crying in the stroller | The baby is not crying in the stroller | The cat is not purring contentedly | modus tollen | The cat is purring contentedly | The baby is crying in the stroller | The cat is not purring contentedly | The baby is not crying in the stroller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring contentedly then the baby is crying in the stroller, and the baby is not crying in the stroller, which establishes that the cat is not purring contentedly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, thus a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id. | If laura's social media accounts were hacked then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | modus ponen | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's social media accounts were hacked then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, thus a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the book is written by a famous author, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, so the book is written by a famous author. | If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the book is written by a famous author | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | The book is written by a famous author | modus ponen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | The book is written by a famous author | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the book is written by a famous author, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, so the book is written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's pet cat is missing then the cat is black, and the cat is not black, which shows that laura's pet cat is not missing. | If laura's pet cat is missing then the cat is black | The cat is not black | Laura's pet cat is not missing | modus tollen | Laura's pet cat is missing | The cat is black | Laura's pet cat is not missing | The cat is not black | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's pet cat is missing then the cat is black, and the cat is not black, which shows that laura's pet cat is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the sun is shining brightly, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, so the sun is shining brightly. | If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the sun is shining brightly | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The sun is shining brightly | modus ponen | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The sun is shining brightly | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The sun is not shining brightly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the sun is shining brightly, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, so the sun is shining brightly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, thus footprints from muddy boots were found in the store. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | modus ponen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, thus footprints from muddy boots were found in 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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the cat is not sleeping on the couch, which implies that no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home. | If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the cat is sleeping on the couch | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | modus tollen | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The cat is sleeping on the couch | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | 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 a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the cat is not sleeping on the couch, which implies that no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, so a shattered vase was not found in the hallway. | If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | modus tollen | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, so a shattered vase was not found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is a collection of short stories, because if john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the book is a collection of short stories and john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape. | If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the book is a collection of short stories | John davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The book is a collection of short stories | modus ponen | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The book is a collection of short stories | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | The book is not a collection of short stories | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is a collection of short stories, because if john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the book is a collection of short stories and john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, therefore a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe. | If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | Surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, therefore a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, since if laura's house was booby-trapped then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment and laura's house was booby-trapped. | If laura's house was booby-trapped then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | Laura's house was booby-trapped | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | modus ponen | Laura's house was booby-trapped | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, since if laura's house was booby-trapped then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment and laura's house was booby-trapped.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, so it can be concluded that fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop. | If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | modus ponen | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, so it can be concluded that fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the baby is crying in the stroller, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, hence the baby is crying in the stroller. | If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the baby is crying in the stroller | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The baby is crying in the stroller | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The baby is crying in the stroller | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The baby is not crying in the stroller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the baby is crying in the stroller, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, hence the baby is crying in the stroller.```<|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 arson occurred on elm street then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the arson occurred on elm street, therefore the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals. | If the arson occurred on elm street then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The arson occurred on elm street | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | modus ponen | The arson occurred on Elm Street | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the arson occurred on elm street then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the arson occurred on elm street, therefore the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, as if a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | modus ponen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, as if a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is black then the book is on the table, and the cat is black, which shows that the book is on the table. | If the cat is black then the book is on the table | The cat is black | The book is on the table | modus ponen | The cat is black | The book is on the table | The cat is not black | The book is not on the table | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is black then the book is on the table, and the cat is black, which shows that the book is on the table.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, so it can be concluded that the suspect had a history of mental health issues. | If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the suspect had a history of mental health issues | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, so it can be concluded that the suspect had a history of mental health issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a history of substance abuse, because if john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then john davis had a history of substance abuse and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents. | If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then john davis had a history of substance abuse | John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | modus ponen | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | 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 substance abuse, because if john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then john davis had a history of substance abuse and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, which shows that john davis had a history of psychiatric issues. | If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | modus ponen | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | 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: ```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, which shows that john davis had 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|>
|
The baby is playing with blocks, because if footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the baby is playing with blocks and footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene. | If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the baby is playing with blocks | Footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene | The baby is playing with blocks | modus ponen | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | The baby is playing with blocks | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | The baby is not playing with blocks | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is playing with blocks, because if footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the baby is playing with blocks and footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the eiffel tower is in paris then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, and the eiffel tower is in paris, therefore a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect. | If the eiffel tower is in paris then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | The eiffel tower is in paris | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | modus ponen | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the eiffel tower is in paris then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, and the eiffel tower is in paris, therefore a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches 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|>
|
Officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store, as if officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror and no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror. | If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | No threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | modus tollen | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store, as if officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror and no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the pizza is hot, and the pizza is not hot, therefore 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 pizza is hot | The pizza is not hot | 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 pizza is hot | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The pizza is not hot | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the pizza is hot, and the pizza is not hot, therefore 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 the weather is mild and pleasant then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, which establishes that the weather is not mild and pleasant. | If the weather is mild and pleasant then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The weather is not mild and pleasant | modus tollen | The weather is mild and pleasant | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The weather is not mild and pleasant | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is mild and pleasant then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, which establishes that the weather is not mild and pleasant.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, so it can be concluded that the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery. | If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | modus ponen | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, so it can be concluded that the store's alarm system was disabled 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 jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, and no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, so it can be concluded that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home. | If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | modus tollen | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, and no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, so it can be concluded that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, which establishes that the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased. | If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | modus ponen | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | 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 a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, which establishes 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|>
|
The tree is shedding leaves, since if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the tree is shedding leaves and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the tree is shedding leaves | A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | The tree is shedding leaves | modus ponen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The tree is shedding leaves | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | 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: ```The tree is shedding leaves, since if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the tree is shedding leaves and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, because if a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then john davis had recently purchased a firearm and john davis had not recently purchased a firearm. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then john davis had recently purchased a firearm | John davis had not recently purchased a firearm | 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 had recently purchased a firearm | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, because if a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then john davis had recently purchased a firearm and john davis had not recently purchased a firearm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, so it can be concluded that a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep. | If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | modus ponen | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | 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 diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, so it can be concluded that a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is tall then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and the tree is tall, which shows that surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery. | If the tree is tall then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The tree is tall | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | modus ponen | The tree is tall | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The tree is not tall | 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: ```If the tree is tall then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and the tree is tall, which shows that surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident, as if laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest. | If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | John davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | modus tollen | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident, as if laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a comedy-drama, as if the movie is a comedy-drama then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse. | If the movie is a comedy-drama then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse | The movie is not a comedy-drama | modus tollen | The movie is a comedy-drama | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | The movie is not a comedy-drama | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a comedy-drama, as if the movie is a comedy-drama then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, which implies that a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder. | If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | modus ponen | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, which implies that a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis has a history of violent behavior then the book is written by a famous author, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, which establishes that the book is written by a famous author. | If john davis has a history of violent behavior then the book is written by a famous author | John davis has a history of violent behavior | The book is written by a famous author | modus ponen | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | The book is written by a famous author | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis has a history of violent behavior then the book is written by a famous author, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, which establishes that the book is written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the movie is a comedy, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, therefore the movie is a comedy. | If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the movie is a comedy | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The movie is a comedy | modus ponen | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The movie is a comedy | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | 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 the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the movie is a comedy, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, therefore the movie is a comedy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a thriller then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone, therefore the movie is not a thriller. | If the movie is a thriller then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | The movie is not a thriller | modus tollen | The movie is a thriller | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The movie is not a thriller | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a thriller then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone, therefore 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|>
|
If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, hence the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker. | If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | modus ponen | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, hence the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, which implies that a forensic expert did not match 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 a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | modus tollen | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, which implies that a forensic expert did not match 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|>
|
No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, since if a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store and officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store. | If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | Officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | modus tollen | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, since if a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store and officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, which establishes that the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime. | If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | modus ponen | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | 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 a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, which establishes that 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 the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, which implies that the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity. | If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | modus tollen | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, which implies that the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, which establishes that the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage. | If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then the movie is a comedy-drama | The movie is not a comedy-drama | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | modus tollen | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | The movie is a comedy-drama | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | The movie is not a comedy-drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, which establishes that the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, so a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder. | If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | modus ponen | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, so a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, which establishes that a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement. | If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the movie is a comedy-drama | The movie is not a comedy-drama | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | modus tollen | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | The movie is a comedy-drama | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | The movie is not a comedy-drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, which establishes that a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, since if a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard. | If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | modus ponen | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, since if a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, which shows that the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery. | If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | modus ponen | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, which shows that the store's security system had been tampered with 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|>
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, as if john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past. | If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | John davis had a restraining order violation in the past | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | modus ponen | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | 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: ```Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, as if john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cold and snowy then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and the weather is cold and snowy, which establishes that the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years. | If the weather is cold and snowy then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The weather is cold and snowy | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | modus ponen | The weather is cold and snowy | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The weather is not cold and snowy | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and snowy then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and the weather is cold and snowy, which establishes that the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The weather is cloudy and rainy, since if richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the weather is cloudy and rainy and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine. | If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the weather is cloudy and rainy | Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | The weather is cloudy and rainy | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | The weather is cloudy and rainy | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The weather is cloudy and rainy, since if richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the weather is cloudy and rainy and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, since if a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man and no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | No homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | modus tollen | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, since if a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man and no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|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 life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the book is a romance novel, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, therefore the book is a romance novel. | If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the book is a romance novel | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The book is a romance novel | modus ponen | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The book is a romance novel | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The book is not a romance novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the book is a romance novel, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, therefore the book is a romance novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, and the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, so the sun is not shining. | If the sun is shining then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The sun is not shining | modus tollen | The sun is shining | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The sun is not shining | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | 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's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, and the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, so the sun is not shining.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, hence surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery. | If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, hence surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, as if sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene and no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | modus tollen | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, as if sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene and no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, because if a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home. | If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | modus ponen | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, because if a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, which shows that a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine. | If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | modus ponen | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | 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 a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, which shows that a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly, as if the cat is sleeping soundly then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs. | If the cat is sleeping soundly then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | John davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | The cat is not sleeping soundly | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping soundly | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | The cat is not sleeping soundly | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is not sleeping soundly, as if the cat is sleeping soundly then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, and a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily, therefore the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals. | If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, and a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily, therefore the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked then the baby is crying in the car, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, so the baby is crying in the car. | If laura's social media accounts were hacked then the baby is crying in the car | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | The baby is crying in the car | modus ponen | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | The baby is crying in the car | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | The baby is not crying in the car | 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 social media accounts were hacked then the baby is crying in the car, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, so the baby is crying in the car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the eiffel tower is in paris then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and the eiffel tower is in paris, which shows that the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder. | If the eiffel tower is in paris then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The eiffel tower is in paris | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | modus ponen | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | 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: ```If the eiffel tower is in paris then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and the eiffel tower is in paris, which shows that the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days 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 emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, which establishes that a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene. | If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | modus ponen | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | 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 emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, which establishes 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|>
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene, since if a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the cat is purring and the cat is not purring. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the cat is purring | The cat is not purring | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | modus tollen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The cat is purring | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The cat is not purring | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene, since if a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the cat is purring and the cat is not purring.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, thus the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker. | If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | modus tollen | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, thus the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring loudly then the book is a bestseller, and the book is not a bestseller, so it can be concluded that the cat is not purring loudly. | If the cat is purring loudly then the book is a bestseller | The book is not a bestseller | The cat is not purring loudly | modus tollen | The cat is purring loudly | The book is a bestseller | The cat is not purring loudly | The book is not a bestseller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring loudly then the book is a bestseller, and the book is not a bestseller, so it can be concluded that the cat is not purring loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then the cat is purring, and the cat is not purring, which implies that no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen. | If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then the cat is purring | The cat is not purring | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | modus tollen | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | The cat is purring | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | The cat is not purring | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then the cat is purring, and the cat is not purring, which implies that no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a family film, since if the movie is a family film then the baby is crawling towards the cat and the baby is not crawling towards the cat. | If the movie is a family film then the baby is crawling towards the cat | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | The movie is not a family film | modus tollen | The movie is a family film | The baby is crawling towards the cat | The movie is not a family film | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a family film, since if the movie is a family film then the baby is crawling towards the cat and the baby is not crawling towards the cat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a musical film, because if the movie is a musical film then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder and a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder. | If the movie is a musical film then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The movie is not a musical film | modus tollen | The movie is a musical film | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The movie is not a musical film | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a musical film, because if the movie is a musical film then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder and a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, because if a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then the cat is purring and the cat is not purring. | If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then the cat is purring | The cat is not purring | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | modus tollen | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | The cat is purring | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | The cat is not purring | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, because if a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then the cat is purring and the cat is not purring.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, hence john davis did not have bruises on his arms. | If john davis had bruises on his arms then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | modus tollen | John Davis had bruises on his arms | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had bruises on his arms then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, hence john davis did not have bruises on his arms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not crawling, because if the baby is crawling then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow. | If the baby is crawling then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | The baby is not crawling | modus tollen | The baby is crawling | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | The baby is not crawling | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not crawling, because if the baby is crawling then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, hence the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail. | If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | modus ponen | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | 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 victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, hence 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 a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, therefore the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker. | If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | modus ponen | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, therefore the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, thus the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest. | If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | modus ponen | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, thus the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then laura's house was booby-trapped, and laura's house was not booby-trapped, thus the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder. | If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then laura's house was booby-trapped | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | modus tollen | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | Laura's house was booby-trapped | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then laura's house was booby-trapped, and laura's house was not booby-trapped, thus the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, which shows that a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone. | If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | modus ponen | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, which shows that a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the 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 a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, thus a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house. | If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | modus ponen | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, thus a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then dogs are not fish, and dogs are fish, which implies 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 dogs are not fish | Dogs are fish | 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 | Dogs are not fish | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | Dogs are fish | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then dogs are not fish, and dogs are fish, which implies 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|>
|
The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, as if a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake. | If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | modus ponen | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | 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 will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, as if a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the door then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, and the baby is crawling towards the door, which establishes that a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom. | If the baby is crawling towards the door then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | The baby is crawling towards the door | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the door | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | The baby is not crawling towards the door | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the door then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, and the baby is crawling towards the door, which establishes that a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, so john davis was found with a bag of cash. | If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then john davis was found with a bag of cash | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | modus ponen | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, so john davis was found with a bag of cash.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, so it can be concluded that no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene. | If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, so it can be concluded that no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.