Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street. stringlengths 74 421 | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street stringlengths 36 192 | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 788 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street stringclasses 788 values | modus ponen stringclasses 2 values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1 stringclasses 394 values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street stringclasses 394 values | True bool 1 class | text stringlengths 453 800 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, hence no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | 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 a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, hence 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|>
|
If the apple is red then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and the apple is red, therefore the cat is purring contentedly on my lap. | If the apple is red then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The apple is red | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | modus ponen | The apple is red | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The apple is not red | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the apple is red then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and the apple is red, therefore the cat is purring contentedly on my lap.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the cat is grooming itself, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, therefore the cat is grooming itself. | If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the cat is grooming itself | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The cat is grooming itself | modus ponen | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The cat is grooming itself | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The cat is not grooming itself | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the cat is grooming itself, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, therefore the cat is grooming itself.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, so it can be concluded that the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, so it can be concluded that the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then dogs are not fish, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, which shows that dogs are not fish. | If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then dogs are not fish | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | Dogs are not fish | modus ponen | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | Dogs are not fish | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then dogs are not fish, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, which shows that dogs are not fish.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, which establishes that the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster. | If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | modus ponen | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, which establishes that the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, thus the dog is barking at the squirrel. | If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the dog is barking at the squirrel | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | The dog is barking at the squirrel | modus ponen | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | The dog is barking at the squirrel | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, thus the dog is barking at the squirrel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, because if the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest. | If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | modus ponen | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, because if the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard and 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|>
|
The baby is not playing with a toy car, because if the baby is playing with a toy car then the sun is setting slowly in the sky and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky. | If the baby is playing with a toy car then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | The baby is not playing with a toy car | modus tollen | The baby is playing with a toy car | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The baby is not playing with a toy car | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not playing with a toy car, because if the baby is playing with a toy car then the sun is setting slowly in the sky and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, which shows that no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | modus tollen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, which shows that no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is black then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, therefore the cat is not black. | If the cat is black then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | The cat is not black | modus tollen | The cat is black | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | The cat is not black | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is black then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, therefore the cat is not black.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the car then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, and a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, so the baby is not crying in the car. | If the baby is crying in the car then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment | A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment | The baby is not crying in the car | modus tollen | The baby is crying in the car | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | The baby is not crying in the car | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying in the car then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, and a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, so the baby is not crying in the car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a thriller then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and the movie is a thriller, hence officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet. | If the movie is a thriller then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet | The movie is a thriller | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | modus ponen | The movie is a thriller | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | The movie is not a thriller | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a thriller then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and the movie is a thriller, hence officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, so it can be concluded that no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror. | If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | modus tollen | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | 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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, so it can be concluded that 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 a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, hence no broken window was found in laura's bedroom. | If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | modus tollen | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, hence no broken window 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 detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, thus detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park. | If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | modus tollen | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, thus detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, which establishes 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | 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 a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, which establishes 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 the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which establishes that a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster. | If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | modus ponen | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which establishes that a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit, as if john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user and the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user. | If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus tollen | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit, as if john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user and the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, since if emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder. | If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | modus tollen | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, since if emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, which establishes that a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door. | If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | modus ponen | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, which establishes that a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, therefore a witness heard screams coming from laura's house. | If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | modus ponen | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, therefore a witness heard screams coming from laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, thus a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby. | If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | modus ponen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | 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 a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, thus 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|>
|
A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, as if the water is warm then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and the water is warm. | If the water is warm then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The water is warm | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | modus ponen | The water is warm | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The water is not warm | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, as if the water is warm then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and the water is warm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, so it can be concluded that no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | John davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | modus tollen | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | 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: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, so it can be concluded that no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a history of mental health issues, because if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the suspect had a history of mental health issues and the sun is setting slowly in the sky. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the suspect had a history of mental health issues | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | modus ponen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | 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: ```The suspect had a history of mental health issues, because if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the suspect had a history of mental health issues and the sun is setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring loudly then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and the cat is purring loudly, thus laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van. | If the cat is purring loudly then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | The cat is purring loudly | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | modus ponen | The cat is purring loudly | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | The cat is not purring loudly | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring loudly then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and the cat is purring loudly, thus laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the building, therefore the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the building, therefore the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the victim's name is laura martinez, and the victim's name is not laura martinez, thus the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the victim's name is laura martinez | The victim's name is not laura martinez | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the victim's name is laura martinez, and the victim's name is not laura martinez, thus the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, because if emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene and no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene. | If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | modus tollen | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | No witness saw a masked man 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: ```Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, because if emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene and 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|>
|
If the movie is a thriller then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, which shows that the movie is not a thriller. | If the movie is a thriller then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | The movie is not a thriller | modus tollen | The movie is a thriller | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The movie is not a thriller | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a thriller then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, which shows that the movie is not a thriller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, so it can be concluded that the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary. | If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | modus tollen | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, so it can be concluded that the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker 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, hence the victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker. | If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker 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 victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | modus tollen | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | 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: ```If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker 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, hence the victim's diary did not contain 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 the cat is eating food then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and the cat is eating food, so a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home. | If the cat is eating food then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home | The cat is eating food | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | modus ponen | The cat is eating food | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | The cat is not eating food | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is eating food then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and the cat is eating food, so a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, because if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker and the victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker. | If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | modus tollen | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | 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: ```A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, because if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker and the victim's diary did not contain 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 sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, therefore the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | modus ponen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, therefore the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the computer is on then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the computer is on, hence the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If the computer is on then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The computer is on | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus ponen | The computer is on | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The computer is not on | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the computer is on then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the computer is on, hence the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the bird is singing then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and the bird is singing, so it can be concluded that officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet. | If the bird is singing then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet | The bird is singing | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | modus ponen | The bird is singing | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | The bird is not singing | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the bird is singing then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and the bird is singing, so it can be concluded that officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, so it can be concluded that footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store. | If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | modus tollen | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | 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 footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, so it can be concluded that footprints from muddy boots were not 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 the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, therefore the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it. | If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles | Richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | modus tollen | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, therefore the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the stranger then paris is in france, and the dog is barking at the stranger, so paris is in france. | If the dog is barking at the stranger then paris is in france | The dog is barking at the stranger | Paris is in France | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the stranger | Paris is in France | The dog is not barking at the stranger | Paris is not in France | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the stranger then paris is in france, and the dog is barking at the stranger, so paris is in france.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, which shows that emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder. | If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | modus tollen | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, which shows that emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the eiffel tower is in paris, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, therefore the eiffel tower is in paris. | If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the eiffel tower is in paris | Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | modus ponen | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the eiffel tower is in paris, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, therefore the eiffel tower is in paris.```<|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 hot and humid then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and the weather is hot and humid, which implies that laura had recently changed her social media passwords. | If the weather is hot and humid then laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The weather is hot and humid | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | modus ponen | The weather is hot and humid | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The weather is not hot and humid | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is hot and humid then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and the weather is hot and humid, which implies that laura had recently changed her social media passwords.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sky is blue then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, and the sky is blue, therefore the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities. | If the sky is blue then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | The sky is blue | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | modus ponen | The sky is blue | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | The sky is not blue | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sky is blue then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, and the sky is blue, therefore the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's mail was tampered with, since if a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then laura's mail was tampered with and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then laura's mail was tampered with | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | Laura's mail was tampered with | modus ponen | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | Laura's mail was tampered with | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | Laura's mail was not tampered with | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's mail was tampered with, since if a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then laura's mail was tampered with and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then laura's social media accounts were hacked, and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, so it can be concluded that laura's social media accounts were hacked. | If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then laura's social media accounts were hacked | Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | modus ponen | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then laura's social media accounts were hacked, and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, so it can be concluded that laura's social media accounts were hacked.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the cat is eating food, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, therefore the cat is eating food. | If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the cat is eating food | Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The cat is eating food | modus ponen | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The cat is eating food | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The cat is not eating food | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the cat is eating food, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, therefore the cat is eating food.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If dogs are not fish then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, thus dogs are fish. | If dogs are not fish then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | Dogs are fish | modus tollen | Dogs are not fish | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | Dogs are fish | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If dogs are not fish then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, thus dogs are fish.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, hence richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | modus ponen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, hence richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, since if the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals and the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals. | If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | modus tollen | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | 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: ```The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, since if the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals and 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 john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the weather is hot and humid, and the weather is not hot and humid, which establishes that john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms. | If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the weather is hot and humid | The weather is not hot and humid | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | modus tollen | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | The weather is hot and humid | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | The weather is not hot and humid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the weather is hot and humid, and the weather is not hot and humid, which establishes that john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then john davis had a secret storage unit, and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, which shows that john davis had a secret storage unit. | If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then john davis had a secret storage unit | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | John Davis had a secret storage unit | modus ponen | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | John Davis had a secret storage unit | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then john davis had a secret storage unit, and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, which shows that john davis had a secret storage unit.```<|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 teething on a toy, since if the baby is teething on a toy then laura's laptop was found smashed and laura's laptop was not found smashed. | If the baby is teething on a toy then laura's laptop was found smashed | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | The baby is not teething on a toy | modus tollen | The baby is teething on a toy | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The baby is not teething on a toy | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not teething on a toy, since if the baby is teething on a toy then laura's laptop was found smashed and laura's laptop was not found smashed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a history of identity theft, as if john davis had a history of identity theft then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle and emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle. | If john davis had a history of identity theft then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of identity theft | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | 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 identity theft, as if john davis had a history of identity theft then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle and emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had a secret storage room in her house then laura's passport is missing, and laura's passport is not missing, which shows that laura did not have a secret storage room in her house. | If laura had a secret storage room in her house then laura's passport is missing | Laura's passport is not missing | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | modus tollen | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | Laura's passport is missing | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | 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: ```If laura had a secret storage room in her house then laura's passport is missing, and laura's passport is not missing, which shows that laura did not have a secret storage room in her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, and laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, so it can be concluded that a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe. | If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | Laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | modus ponen | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | 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 laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, and laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, so it can be concluded that 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|>
|
The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, as if the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement and the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain. | If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | modus ponen | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, as if the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement and the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, since if the baby is crying then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river and the baby is crying. | If the baby is crying then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | The baby is crying | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | modus ponen | The baby is crying | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | The baby is not crying | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, since if the baby is crying then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river and the baby is crying.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the weather is not cloudy and rainy, which implies that a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene. | If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the weather is cloudy and rainy | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The weather is cloudy and rainy | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | 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: ```If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the weather is not cloudy and rainy, which implies that a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask 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|>
|
If john davis has a history of violent behavior then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, which establishes that a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace. | If john davis has a history of violent behavior then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | John davis has a history of violent behavior | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | modus ponen | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | 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 a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, which establishes that a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, which implies that the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary. | If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | modus ponen | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, which implies that the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a bestseller then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, so it can be concluded that the book is not a bestseller. | If the book is a bestseller then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | The book is not a bestseller | modus tollen | The book is a bestseller | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | The book is not a bestseller | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a bestseller then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, so it can be concluded that the book is not a bestseller.```<|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 water is warm then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, so it can be concluded that the water is not warm. | If the water is warm then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | The water is not warm | modus tollen | The water is warm | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The water is not warm | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the water is warm then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, so it can be concluded that the water is not warm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, therefore laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john. | If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | modus ponen | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | 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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, therefore laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then the baby is playing with toys, and the book is written by a famous author, which establishes that the baby is playing with toys. | If the book is written by a famous author then the baby is playing with toys | The book is written by a famous author | The baby is playing with toys | modus ponen | The book is written by a famous author | The baby is playing with toys | The book is not written by a famous author | The baby is not playing with toys | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then the baby is playing with toys, and the book is written by a famous author, which establishes that the baby is playing with toys.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and no witness heard screams coming from laura's house, therefore the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment. | If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house | No witness heard screams coming from laura's house | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | modus tollen | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and no witness heard screams coming from laura's house, therefore the victim's car keys were not missing from their 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 cat is not black, because if the cat is black then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect and a fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect. | If the cat is black then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | The cat is not black | modus tollen | The cat is black | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | The cat is not black | 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: ```The cat is not black, because if the cat is black then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect and a fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, so sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death. | If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | modus tollen | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend'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 sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, so sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is eating food then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and john davis did not have a history of stalking other women, which shows that the cat is not eating food. | If the cat is eating food then john davis had a history of stalking other women | John davis did not have a history of stalking other women | The cat is not eating food | modus tollen | The cat is eating food | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | The cat is not eating food | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is eating food then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and john davis did not have a history of stalking other women, which shows that the cat is not eating food.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Cats are not mammals, since if cats are mammals then the dog is barking at the television and the dog is not barking at the television. | If cats are mammals then the dog is barking at the television | The dog is not barking at the television | Cats are not mammals | modus tollen | Cats are mammals | The dog is barking at the television | Cats are not mammals | The dog is not barking at the television | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Cats are not mammals, since if cats are mammals then the dog is barking at the television and the dog is not barking at the television.```<|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 laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, therefore no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene. | If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | 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 a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, therefore 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|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, which implies that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, which implies that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data, which implies that 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 victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | 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 victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data, which implies that 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 victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, which establishes that the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data. | If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | modus tollen | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, which establishes that the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the movie is a horror film, and the movie is not a horror film, so it can be concluded that the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim. | If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the movie is a horror film | The movie is not a horror film | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The movie is a horror film | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | The movie is not a horror film | 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 documented history of stalking the victim then the movie is a horror film, and the movie is not a horror film, so it can be concluded that the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking 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|>
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, since if a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat and a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat | A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | modus tollen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | 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 entering the victim's home the night of the murder, since if a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat and a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat.```<|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 murder weapon was a baseball bat, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, thus the murder weapon was a baseball bat. | If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the murder weapon was a baseball bat | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, thus the murder weapon was a baseball bat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is interesting then the book is on the nightstand, and the book is not on the nightstand, so the book is not interesting. | If the book is interesting then the book is on the nightstand | The book is not on the nightstand | The book is not interesting | modus tollen | The book is interesting | The book is on the nightstand | The book is not interesting | The book is not on the nightstand | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is interesting then the book is on the nightstand, and the book is not on the nightstand, so the book is not interesting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, since if the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker. | If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | modus ponen | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, since if the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim and 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 had a secret storage room in her house then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and laura had a secret storage room in her house, thus the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect. | If laura had a secret storage room in her house then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | modus ponen | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a secret storage room in her house then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and laura had a secret storage room in her house, thus the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething then the book is a romance novel, and the baby is teething, so it can be concluded that the book is a romance novel. | If the baby is teething then the book is a romance novel | The baby is teething | The book is a romance novel | modus ponen | The baby is teething | The book is a romance novel | The baby is not teething | 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 baby is teething then the book is a romance novel, and the baby is teething, so it can be concluded that 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 a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the bird is singing, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, so it can be concluded that the bird is singing. | If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the bird is singing | A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | The bird is singing | modus ponen | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | The bird is singing | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | The bird is not singing | 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 bird is singing, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, so it can be concluded that the bird is singing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, since if a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing. | If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | modus ponen | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, since if a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, which establishes that a strand of hair was found at the crime scene. | If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene | A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, which establishes that a strand of hair was found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, which implies that the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery. | If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is not barking at the mailman | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | modus tollen | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The dog is barking at the mailman | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | The dog is not barking at the mailman | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, which implies that the store's security system had not 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|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the suspect's name is john davis, and the suspect's name is not john davis, which implies that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the suspect's name is john davis | The suspect's name is not john davis | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The suspect's name is John Davis | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | The suspect's name is not John Davis | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the suspect's name is john davis, and the suspect's name is not john davis, which implies that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, therefore a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster. | If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | John davis had a history of psychiatric issues | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, therefore a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, thus john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone. | If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | modus ponen | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, thus john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the dog is barking at the television, and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, which implies that the dog is barking at the television. | If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the dog is barking at the television | A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace | The dog is barking at the television | modus ponen | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | The dog is barking at the television | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | The dog is not barking at the television | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the dog is barking at the television, and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, which implies that the dog is barking at the television.```<|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 sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, hence 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 sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | 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 | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of 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 victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, hence 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 security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the dog is barking at the television, and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, hence the dog is barking at the television. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the dog is barking at the television | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The dog is barking at the television | modus ponen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The dog is barking at the television | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The dog is not barking at the television | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the dog is barking at the television, and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, hence the dog is barking at the television.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, so it can be concluded that the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago. | If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | modus ponen | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, so it can be concluded that the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago.```<|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's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then laura's passport is missing and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then laura's passport is missing | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | Laura's passport is missing | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | Laura's passport is missing | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | 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's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then laura's passport is missing and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is sleeping soundly, as if laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then the cat is sleeping soundly and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer. | If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then the cat is sleeping soundly | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | The cat is sleeping soundly | modus ponen | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | The cat is sleeping soundly | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | The cat is not sleeping soundly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is sleeping soundly, as if laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then the cat is sleeping soundly and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the book is a mystery novel, and the book is not a mystery novel, which implies that the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the book is a mystery novel | The book is not a mystery novel | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | The book is a mystery novel | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | The book is not a mystery novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the book is a mystery novel, and the book is not a mystery novel, which implies that the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle.```<|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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, which establishes that the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information. | If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | modus tollen | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, which establishes that the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, because if john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office and no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office. | If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | modus tollen | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | 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: ```John davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, because if john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office and no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, which establishes that the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage. | If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | modus ponen | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, which establishes that the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was 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 a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, therefore a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | modus ponen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, therefore a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.