Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street. stringlengths 74 421 | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street stringlengths 36 192 | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 788 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street stringclasses 788 values | modus ponen stringclasses 2 values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1 stringclasses 394 values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street stringclasses 394 values | True bool 1 class | text stringlengths 453 800 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, so a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | modus ponen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, so a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room, as if a bloody footprint was found in the living room then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine and a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine. | If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine | A threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus tollen | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No bloody footprint was found in the living room, as if a bloody footprint was found in the living room then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine and a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a bestseller then the baby is teething on a toy, and the book is a bestseller, which implies that the baby is teething on a toy. | If the book is a bestseller then the baby is teething on a toy | The book is a bestseller | The baby is teething on a toy | modus ponen | The book is a bestseller | The baby is teething on a toy | The book is not a bestseller | The baby is not teething on a toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a bestseller then the baby is teething on a toy, and the book is a bestseller, which implies that the baby is teething on a toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, which establishes that no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence. | If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | modus tollen | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, which establishes that no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, since if the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect. | If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | modus ponen | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | 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: ```A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, since if the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into 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|>
|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, since if the victim's name is laura martinez then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors and the victim's name is laura martinez. | If the victim's name is laura martinez then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | The victim's name is laura martinez | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | modus ponen | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, since if the victim's name is laura martinez then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors and the victim's name is laura martinez.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the bird is singing then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and the bird is singing, therefore a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park. | If the bird is singing then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The bird is singing | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | modus ponen | The bird is singing | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The bird is not singing | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the bird is singing then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and the bird is singing, therefore a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, which establishes that the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals. | If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | modus ponen | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, which establishes that the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a drama then the dog is barking at the television, and the dog is not barking at the television, so it can be concluded that the movie is not a drama. | If the movie is a drama then the dog is barking at the television | The dog is not barking at the television | The movie is not a drama | modus tollen | The movie is a drama | The dog is barking at the television | The movie is not a drama | The dog is not barking at the television | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a drama then the dog is barking at the television, and the dog is not barking at the television, so it can be concluded that the movie is not a drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which implies that officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store. | If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | modus ponen | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, which implies that officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the cat then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the weather is not cloudy and rainy, thus the baby is not crawling towards the cat. | If the baby is crawling towards the cat then the weather is cloudy and rainy | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the cat | The weather is cloudy and rainy | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | 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 the baby is crawling towards the cat then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the weather is not cloudy and rainy, thus the baby is not crawling towards the cat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars 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, hence the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars. | If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars 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 stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | modus tollen | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | 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 stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars 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, hence the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, thus a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene. | If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | modus ponen | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, thus a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not on the nightstand, because if the book is on the nightstand then laura's wedding ring is missing and laura's wedding ring is not missing. | If the book is on the nightstand then laura's wedding ring is missing | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | The book is not on the nightstand | modus tollen | The book is on the nightstand | Laura's wedding ring is missing | The book is not on the nightstand | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not on the nightstand, because if the book is on the nightstand then laura's wedding ring is missing and laura's wedding ring is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, thus the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, thus the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, thus richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account. | If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | modus ponen | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | 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 a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, thus richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, therefore no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | Detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | 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 | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | 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: ```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, therefore no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then the sun is setting slowly, and the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, thus the sun is setting slowly. | If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then the sun is setting slowly | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The sun is setting slowly | modus ponen | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The sun is setting slowly | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The sun is not setting slowly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then the sun is setting slowly, and the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, thus the sun is setting slowly.```<|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 social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, which implies that emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon. | If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | modus ponen | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, which implies that emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, hence richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account. | If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | modus ponen | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | 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 a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, 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|>
|
John davis had recently purchased a firearm, because if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then john davis had recently purchased a firearm and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park. | If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then john davis had recently purchased a firearm | A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had recently purchased a firearm, because if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then john davis had recently purchased a firearm and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, as if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then a gas leak was detected in the basement and a gas leak was not detected in the basement. | If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then a gas leak was detected in the basement | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | 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 | A gas leak was detected in the basement | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, as if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then a gas leak was detected in the basement and a gas leak was not detected in the basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then john davis had bruises on his arms, and john davis did not have bruises on his arms, thus emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then john davis had bruises on his arms | John davis did not have bruises on his arms | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | modus tollen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | John Davis had bruises on his arms | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then john davis had bruises on his arms, and john davis did not have bruises on his arms, thus emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the cat is purring, and the cat is not purring, which shows that officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby. | If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the cat is purring | The cat is not purring | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | modus tollen | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | The cat is purring | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | The cat is not purring | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the cat is purring, and the cat is not purring, which shows that officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, therefore the victim's name is sarah mitchell. | If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the victim's name is sarah mitchell | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | modus ponen | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, therefore the victim's name is sarah mitchell.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis has a history of violent behavior then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, hence the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim. | If john davis has a history of violent behavior then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | John davis has a history of violent behavior | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | modus ponen | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis has a history of violent behavior then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, hence the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, therefore a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits. | If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat | A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | modus tollen | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | 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: ```If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, therefore a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.```<|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 building, as if a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | modus tollen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No security camera captured the suspect entering the building, as if a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, so it can be concluded that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home. | If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | 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 | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, so it can be concluded that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, so detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement. | If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | modus ponen | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, so detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, hence the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals. | If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, hence 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 a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then the movie is a horror film, and the movie is not a horror film, which shows that no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene. | If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then the movie is a horror film | The movie is not a horror film | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The movie is a horror film | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | 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 a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then the movie is a horror film, and the movie is not a horror film, which shows that no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, as if a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder. | If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | modus ponen | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to 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: ```A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, as if a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the computer is on then the car is parked on the street, and the computer is on, which establishes that the car is parked on the street. | If the computer is on then the car is parked on the street | The computer is on | The car is parked on the street | modus ponen | The computer is on | The car is parked on the street | The computer is not on | The car is not parked on the street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the computer is on then the car is parked on the street, and the computer is on, which establishes that the car is parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the football is round then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, so it can be concluded that the football is not round. | If the football is round then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The football is not round | modus tollen | The football is round | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The football is not round | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the football is round then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, so it can be concluded that the football is not round.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not crawling towards the door, because if the baby is crawling towards the door then the computer is on and the computer is not on. | If the baby is crawling towards the door then the computer is on | The computer is not on | The baby is not crawling towards the door | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the door | The computer is on | The baby is not crawling towards the door | The computer is not on | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not crawling towards the door, because if the baby is crawling towards the door then the computer is on and the computer is not on.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is parked on the street then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and the car is parked on the street, thus john davis had recently purchased a firearm. | If the car is parked on the street then john davis had recently purchased a firearm | The car is parked on the street | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | modus ponen | The car is parked on the street | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | The car is not parked on the street | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is parked on the street then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and the car is parked on the street, thus john davis had recently purchased a firearm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home, so no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus tollen | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | 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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home, so no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the car is a hybrid, and the car is not a hybrid, which implies that a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair. | If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the car is a hybrid | The car is not a hybrid | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | modus tollen | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | The car is a hybrid | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | The car is not a hybrid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the car is a hybrid, and the car is not a hybrid, which implies that a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, thus a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house. | If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, thus a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, which shows that the sun is shining brightly overhead. | If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the sun is shining brightly overhead | John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | The sun is shining brightly overhead | modus ponen | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The sun is shining brightly overhead | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, which shows that the sun is shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's name is laura martinez, since if the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the victim's name is laura martinez and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident. | If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the victim's name is laura martinez | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | modus ponen | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | 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: ```The victim's name is laura martinez, since if the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the victim's name is laura martinez and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat, because if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the murder weapon was a baseball bat and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene. | If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the murder weapon was a baseball bat | A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | modus ponen | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | 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: ```The murder weapon was a baseball bat, because if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the murder weapon was a baseball bat and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim, because if the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker and the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker. | If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | 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 store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim, because if the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker and the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a documentary then the baby is crying loudly, and the baby is not crying loudly, hence the movie is not a documentary. | If the movie is a documentary then the baby is crying loudly | The baby is not crying loudly | The movie is not a documentary | modus tollen | The movie is a documentary | The baby is crying loudly | The movie is not a documentary | The baby is not crying loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a documentary then the baby is crying loudly, and the baby is not crying loudly, hence the movie is not a documentary.```<|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 brown discovered a hidden basement then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, which shows that officer brown did not discover a hidden basement. | If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | modus tollen | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, which shows that officer brown did not discover a hidden basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the apple is red then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, and the apple is red, hence the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information. | If the apple is red then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The apple is red | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | modus ponen | The apple is red | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The apple is not red | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the apple is red then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, and the apple is red, hence the victim's laptop contained 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|>
|
Detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, because if detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask. | If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | modus tollen | Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, because if detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not barking at the door, because if the dog is barking at the door then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim. | If the dog is barking at the door then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The dog is not barking at the door | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the door | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The dog is not barking at the door | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 dog is not barking at the door, because if the dog is barking at the door then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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|>
|
The sun is not shining brightly overhead, because if the sun is shining brightly overhead then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom and no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not shining brightly overhead, because if the sun is shining brightly overhead then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom and no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, which shows that laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john. | If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | 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 surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, which shows that 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|>
|
John davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents, since if john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon and the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon. | If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | modus tollen | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents, since if john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon and the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's passport is missing then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and laura's passport is missing, thus emily had recently taken a self-defense course. | If laura's passport is missing then emily had recently taken a self-defense course | Laura's passport is missing | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | modus ponen | Laura's passport is missing | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | Laura's passport is not missing | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | 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 passport is missing then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and laura's passport is missing, thus emily had recently taken a self-defense course.```<|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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair, so the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation. | If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | modus tollen | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair, so the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a documentary, since if the movie is a documentary then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs. | If the movie is a documentary then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | John davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | The movie is not a documentary | modus tollen | The movie is a documentary | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | The movie is not a documentary | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a documentary, since if the movie is a documentary then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, as if richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then laura's pet cat is missing and laura's pet cat is not missing. | If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then laura's pet cat is missing | Laura's pet cat is not missing | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | modus tollen | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Laura's pet cat is missing | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | Laura's pet cat 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: ```Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, as if richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then laura's pet cat is missing and laura's pet cat is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, since if emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs. | If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | John davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | modus tollen | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | 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: ```Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, since if emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, hence a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim. | If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | modus ponen | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, hence a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, hence a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair. | If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | modus ponen | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | 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 a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, hence a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, which implies that the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools. | If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | modus ponen | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, which implies that the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying then the movie is a musical film, and the movie is not a musical film, which implies that the baby is not crying. | If the baby is crying then the movie is a musical film | The movie is not a musical film | The baby is not crying | modus tollen | The baby is crying | The movie is a musical film | The baby is not crying | The movie is not a musical 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 baby is crying then the movie is a musical film, and the movie is not a musical film, which implies that the baby is not crying.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, therefore the victim had a restraining order against the suspect. | If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect | Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | modus ponen | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, therefore the victim had a restraining order against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, which shows that the baby is not crawling. | If the baby is crawling then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | The baby is not crawling | modus tollen | The baby is crawling | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | The baby is not crawling | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, which shows that the baby is not crawling.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, because if detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement. | If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | modus ponen | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, because if detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, which implies that a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene. | If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | modus tollen | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, which implies that a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, since if a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer brown discovered a hidden basement and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement. | If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer brown discovered a hidden basement | Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | modus tollen | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, since if a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then officer brown discovered a hidden basement and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder. | If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | 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 | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously 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 victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace, which shows that sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder. | If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | modus tollen | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at 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 sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace, which shows that sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot 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|>
|
The baby is laughing at the toy, because if detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the baby is laughing at the toy and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom. | If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the baby is laughing at the toy | Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | The baby is laughing at the toy | modus ponen | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The baby is laughing at the toy | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The baby is not laughing at the toy | 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 laughing at the toy, because if detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the baby is laughing at the toy and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah'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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the phone is ringing, and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, which establishes that the phone is ringing. | If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the phone is ringing | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The phone is ringing | modus ponen | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The phone is ringing | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The phone is not ringing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the phone is ringing, and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, which establishes that the phone is ringing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, which shows that the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors. | If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, which shows that the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, so it can be concluded that a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery. | If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | modus ponen | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing 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 toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, so it can be concluded that a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing 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 dog is barking then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and the dog is barking, which establishes that the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery. | If the dog is barking then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The dog is barking | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | modus ponen | The dog is barking | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The dog is not barking | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and the dog is barking, which establishes that the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, which establishes that john davis was found with a bag of cash. | If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then john davis was found with a bag of cash | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | modus ponen | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, which establishes that john davis was found with a bag of cash.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap, as if the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then the sun is setting slowly in the sky and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky. | If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | modus tollen | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | 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 cat is not purring contentedly on my lap, as if the cat is purring contentedly on my lap 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 the book is on the nightstand 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, hence the book is not on the nightstand. | If the book is on the nightstand 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 | The book is not on the nightstand | modus tollen | The book is on the nightstand | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The book is not on the nightstand | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the nightstand 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, hence the book is not on the nightstand.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, therefore a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car. | If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | modus tollen | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, therefore a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a history of financial problems, because if john davis had a history of financial problems then the weather is cloudy and rainy and the weather is not cloudy and rainy. | If john davis had a history of financial problems then the weather is cloudy and rainy | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of financial problems | The weather is cloudy and rainy | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | 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: ```John davis did not have a history of financial problems, because if john davis had a history of financial problems then the weather is cloudy and rainy and the weather is not cloudy and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, because if the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace and a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace. | If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at 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: ```The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, because if the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace and a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at 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 the book is a bestseller then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, and the book is a bestseller, therefore detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement. | If the book is a bestseller then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | The book is a bestseller | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | modus ponen | The book is a bestseller | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | The book is not a bestseller | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a bestseller then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, and the book is a bestseller, therefore detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, which shows that no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | modus tollen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | 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: ```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, which shows that no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, which implies that laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer. | If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | modus tollen | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | 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 laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, which implies that laura's personal files were not 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|>
|
Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, because if john davis had bruises on his arms then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house and john davis had bruises on his arms. | If john davis had bruises on his arms then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | John davis had bruises on his arms | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | modus ponen | John Davis had bruises on his arms | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | 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: ```Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, because if john davis had bruises on his arms then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house and john davis had bruises on his arms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a collection of short stories then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which implies that the book is not a collection of short stories. | If the book is a collection of short stories then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | The book is not a collection of short stories | modus tollen | The book is a collection of short stories | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The book is not a collection of short stories | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a collection of short stories then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which implies that the book is not a collection of short stories.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, which establishes that a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | modus ponen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, which establishes that a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, hence a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house. | If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house | Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | modus ponen | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, hence a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, hence the sun is not setting slowly in the sky. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | A gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, hence 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 laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, so laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently. | If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | modus tollen | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, so laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the sun is shining through the window, and the sun is not shining through the window, so the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact. | If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the sun is shining through the window | The sun is not shining through the window | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | modus tollen | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | The sun is shining through the window | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | The sun is not shining through the window | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the sun is shining through the window, and the sun is not shining through the window, so the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, thus a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard. | If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | modus ponen | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | 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 victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, thus a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a collection of short stories 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, thus the book is not a collection of short stories. | If the book is a collection of short stories 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 book is not a collection of short stories | modus tollen | The book is a collection of short stories | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The book is not a collection of short stories | 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 book is a collection of short stories 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, thus the book is not a collection of short stories.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not a memoir, since if the book is a memoir then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster and no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster. | If the book is a memoir then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The book is not a memoir | modus tollen | The book is a memoir | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The book is not a memoir | 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: ```The book is not a memoir, since if the book is a memoir then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster and 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|>
|
Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, as if a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door. | If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | modus ponen | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, as if a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of financial problems then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and john davis had a history of financial problems, thus the dog is barking at the mail truck. | If john davis had a history of financial problems then the dog is barking at the mail truck | John davis had a history of financial problems | The dog is barking at the mail truck | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of financial problems | The dog is barking at the mail truck | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of financial problems then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and john davis had a history of financial problems, thus the dog is barking at the mail truck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, as if john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest. | If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat | John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | modus ponen | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | 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: ```A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, as if john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then john davis had a secret storage unit, and john davis did not have a secret storage unit, which shows that no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom. | If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then john davis had a secret storage unit | John davis did not have a secret storage unit | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | modus tollen | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | John Davis had a secret storage unit | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | 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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then john davis had a secret storage unit, and john davis did not have a secret storage unit, which shows that no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then a shattered vase was found in the hallway, and a shattered vase was not found in the hallway, thus no bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then a shattered vase was found in the hallway | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus tollen | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then a shattered vase was found in the hallway, and a shattered vase was not found in the hallway, thus no bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, and detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, hence richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions. | If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | Detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | modus tollen | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, and detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, hence richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, so 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 dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is not barking at the mailman | 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 dog is barking at the mailman | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | 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 suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, so 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|>
|
A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, as if a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the pizza is hot and the pizza is not hot. | If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the pizza is hot | The pizza is not hot | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | modus tollen | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The pizza is hot | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The pizza is not hot | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, as if a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the pizza is hot and the pizza is not hot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.