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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, since if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | modus ponen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, since if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store and 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, thus john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit. | If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus ponen | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, thus john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit.```<|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 using aliases and false identities 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 suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities. | If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities 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 suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | 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 suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities 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 suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, hence laura's phone records do not show calls to 911. | If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | modus tollen | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, hence laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, because if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number and the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number. | If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | modus tollen | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, because if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number and the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.```<|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 a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, thus a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard. | If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | modus tollen | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | 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 a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, thus a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the tree is shedding leaves, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, hence the tree is shedding leaves. | If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the tree is shedding leaves | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The tree is shedding leaves | modus ponen | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The tree is shedding leaves | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The tree is not shedding leaves | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the tree is shedding leaves, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, hence the tree is shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then laura's house was booby-trapped, and the dog is barking at the mailman, which establishes that laura's house was booby-trapped. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then laura's house was booby-trapped | The dog is barking at the mailman | Laura's house was booby-trapped | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the mailman | Laura's house was booby-trapped | The dog is not barking at the mailman | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then laura's house was booby-trapped, and the dog is barking at the mailman, which establishes that laura's house was booby-trapped.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The football is round, as if john davis had a history of anger management issues then the football is round and john davis had a history of anger management issues. | If john davis had a history of anger management issues then the football is round | John davis had a history of anger management issues | The football is round | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | The football is round | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | The football is not round | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The football is round, as if john davis had a history of anger management issues then the football is round and john davis had a history of anger management issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, therefore detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard. | If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | modus ponen | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | 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 the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, therefore detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, thus 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 homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | 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 homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, thus 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|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, so it can be concluded that john davis had a history of substance abuse. | If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then john davis had a history of substance abuse | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | modus ponen | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, so it can be concluded that john davis had a history of substance abuse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, so it can be concluded that john davis had a history of stalking other women. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then john davis had a history of stalking other women | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, so it can be concluded that john davis had a history of stalking other women.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, as if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the book is on the nightstand and the book is not on the nightstand. | If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the book is on the nightstand | The book is not on the nightstand | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | modus tollen | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | The book is on the nightstand | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | The book is not on the nightstand | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, as if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the book is on the nightstand and 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|>
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, as if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim and the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim. | If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | modus tollen | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking 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 victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, as if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim and 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|>
|
If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, which shows that john davis had a history of stalking laura. | If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then john davis had a history of stalking laura | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | modus ponen | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, which shows that john davis had a history of stalking laura.```<|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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, so a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat. | If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | modus ponen | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | 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 mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, so a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, which establishes that forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing. | If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | modus ponen | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, which establishes that forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, therefore emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery. | If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | modus tollen | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, therefore emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of 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|>
|
The book is not interesting, since if the book is interesting then the car is parked on the street and the car is not parked on the street. | If the book is interesting then the car is parked on the street | The car is not parked on the street | The book is not interesting | modus tollen | The book is interesting | The car is parked on the street | The book is not interesting | 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: ```The book is not interesting, since if the book is interesting then the car is parked on the street and the car is not parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A shattered vase was not found in the hallway, since if a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the baby is playing with a toy car and the baby is not playing with a toy car. | If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the baby is playing with a toy car | The baby is not playing with a toy car | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | modus tollen | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | The baby is playing with a toy car | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | The baby is not playing with a toy car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A shattered vase was not found in the hallway, since if a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the baby is playing with a toy car and the baby is not playing with a toy car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, and john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues, which establishes that the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities. | If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues | John davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, and john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues, which establishes that the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, since if the sun is shining then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery and the sun is shining. | If the sun is shining then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The sun is shining | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | modus ponen | The sun is shining | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The sun is not shining | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, since if the sun is shining then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery and the sun is shining.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is a science fiction film, because if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the movie is a science fiction film and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the movie is a science fiction film | A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | The movie is a science fiction film | modus ponen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The movie is a science fiction film | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The movie is not a science fiction film | 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 a science fiction film, because if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the movie is a science fiction film and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring loudly then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, therefore the cat is not purring loudly. | If the cat is purring loudly then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | The cat is not purring loudly | modus tollen | The cat is purring loudly | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | The cat is not purring loudly | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring loudly then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, therefore the cat is not purring loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a history of substance abuse, because if a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then john davis had a history of substance abuse and a forensic expert found 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 john davis had a history of substance abuse | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | modus ponen | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a history of substance abuse, because if a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then john davis had a history of substance abuse and a forensic expert found 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|>
|
If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the movie is a thriller, and the movie is not a thriller, so it can be concluded that sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death. | If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the movie is a thriller | The movie is not a thriller | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | modus tollen | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | The movie is a thriller | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | The movie is not a thriller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the movie is a thriller, and the movie is not a thriller, so it can be concluded that sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, because if the weather is mild and pleasant then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information and the weather is mild and pleasant. | If the weather is mild and pleasant then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The weather is mild and pleasant | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | modus ponen | The weather is mild and pleasant | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The weather is not mild and pleasant | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, because if the weather is mild and pleasant then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information and the weather is mild and pleasant.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then laura's social media accounts were hacked, and laura's social media accounts were not hacked, which shows that the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment. | If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then laura's social media accounts were hacked | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | modus tollen | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then laura's social media accounts were hacked, and laura's social media accounts were not hacked, which shows that the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of identity theft then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and john davis had a history of identity theft, hence a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store. | If john davis had a history of identity theft then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | John davis had a history of identity theft | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of identity theft | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | 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 john davis had a history of identity theft then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and john davis had a history of identity theft, hence 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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which shows that witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist. | If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | modus tollen | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which shows that witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then the computer is on, and the computer is not on, thus the weather is not mild and pleasant. | If the weather is mild and pleasant then the computer is on | The computer is not on | The weather is not mild and pleasant | modus tollen | The weather is mild and pleasant | The computer is on | The weather is not mild and pleasant | The computer is not on | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is mild and pleasant then the computer is on, and the computer is not on, thus the weather is not mild and pleasant.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with a toy car then the weather is cold and snowy, and the weather is not cold and snowy, so the baby is not playing with a toy car. | If the baby is playing with a toy car then the weather is cold and snowy | The weather is not cold and snowy | The baby is not playing with a toy car | modus tollen | The baby is playing with a toy car | The weather is cold and snowy | The baby is not playing with a toy car | The weather is not cold and snowy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with a toy car then the weather is cold and snowy, and the weather is not cold and snowy, so the baby is not playing with a toy car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the eiffel tower is not in paris, which implies that the cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror. | If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the eiffel tower is in paris | The eiffel tower is not in paris | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | modus tollen | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the eiffel tower is not in paris, which implies that the cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, so a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public. | If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, so a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.```<|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 book is written by a famous author, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, which shows that the book is written by a famous author. | If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the book is written by a famous author | A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home | The book is written by a famous author | modus ponen | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | The book is written by a famous author | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the book is written by a famous author, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, which shows that the book is written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, which shows that officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet. | If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | No hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | modus tollen | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, which shows that officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, which establishes that a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office. | If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, which establishes that a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, therefore a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox. | If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | modus tollen | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | 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: ```If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, therefore a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, thus the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions. | If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the sun is setting slowly | The sun is not setting slowly | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | modus tollen | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The sun is setting slowly | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | 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 social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, thus the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, which establishes that the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors. | If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, which establishes 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|>
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, since if a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store. | If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | modus ponen | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | 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 found on the victim's car trunk, since if a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk and 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|>
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker, because if laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery. | If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | modus tollen | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker, because if laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is black then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, and the cat is black, so it can be concluded that a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder. | If the cat is black then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The cat is black | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | modus ponen | The cat is black | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The cat is not black | 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 cat is black then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, and the cat is black, so it can be concluded that a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, which establishes that the murder weapon was not a baseball bat. | If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | modus tollen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, which establishes that the murder weapon was not a baseball bat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, which shows that footprints from muddy boots were found in the store. | If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | modus ponen | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | 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 laura had recently changed her social media passwords then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, which shows that footprints from muddy boots were found in the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily had recently taken a self-defense course, since if the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then emily had recently taken a self-defense course and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage. | If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | modus ponen | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | 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: ```Emily had recently taken a self-defense course, since if the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then emily had recently taken a self-defense course and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, since if the dog is barking then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime and the dog is barking. | If the dog is barking then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The dog is barking | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | modus ponen | The dog is barking | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The dog is not barking | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, since if the dog is barking then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime and the dog is barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of stalking laura then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and john davis had a history of stalking laura, which implies that the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon. | If john davis had a history of stalking laura then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | John davis had a history of stalking laura | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | 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: ```If john davis had a history of stalking laura then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and john davis had a history of stalking laura, which implies that the suspect had 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 the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then laura's laptop was found smashed, and laura's laptop was not found smashed, which establishes that the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery. | If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then laura's laptop was found smashed | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | modus tollen | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then laura's laptop was found smashed, and laura's laptop was not found smashed, which establishes that the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, which shows that the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it. | If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | modus tollen | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, which shows that the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, so laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed. | If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | modus ponen | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, so laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis has a history of violent behavior, since if the baby is crying in the stroller then john davis has a history of violent behavior and the baby is crying in the stroller. | If the baby is crying in the stroller then john davis has a history of violent behavior | The baby is crying in the stroller | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | modus ponen | The baby is crying in the stroller | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | The baby is not crying in the stroller | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis has a history of violent behavior, since if the baby is crying in the stroller then john davis has a history of violent behavior and the baby is crying in the stroller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, so a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags. | If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | modus tollen | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, so a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.```<|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 memoir then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and the book is a memoir, so it can be concluded that a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction. | If the book is a memoir then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction | The book is a memoir | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | modus ponen | The book is a memoir | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | The book is not a memoir | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | 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 memoir then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and the book is a memoir, so it can be concluded that a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, hence the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems. | If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | modus ponen | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, hence the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, which shows that laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats. | If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | modus tollen | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, which shows that laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky, because if sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the sun is setting slowly in the sky and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | modus ponen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | 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 sun is setting slowly in the sky, because if sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the sun is setting slowly in the sky and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not barking at the squirrel, because if the dog is barking at the squirrel then the movie is a thriller and the movie is not a thriller. | If the dog is barking at the squirrel then the movie is a thriller | The movie is not a thriller | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the squirrel | The movie is a thriller | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | The movie is not a thriller | 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 squirrel, because if the dog is barking at the squirrel then the movie is a thriller and the movie is not a thriller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a history of stalking other women, as if john davis had a history of stalking other women then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment and no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment. | If john davis had a history of stalking other women then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | 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: ```John davis did not have a history of stalking other women, as if john davis had a history of stalking other women then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment and no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, because if emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | modus tollen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | 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 not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, because if emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed.```<|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 a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and the baby is crawling towards the cat, so a strand of hair was found at the crime scene. | If the baby is crawling towards the cat then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The baby is crawling towards the cat | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the cat | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the cat then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and the baby is crawling towards the cat, so a strand of hair was found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, so it can be concluded that the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect. | If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | modus ponen | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, so it can be concluded that the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to 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|>
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, since if emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky. | If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | modus ponen | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, since if emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, and richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine, hence laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | Richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | modus tollen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, and richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine, hence laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's name is not sarah mitchell, because if the victim's name is sarah mitchell then the dog is barking at the dog next door and the dog is not barking at the dog next door. | If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then the dog is barking at the dog next door | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | modus tollen | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | The dog is barking at the dog next door | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | 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 not sarah mitchell, because if the victim's name is sarah mitchell then the dog is barking at the dog next door and the dog is not barking at the dog next door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, as if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building and no security camera captured the suspect entering the building. | If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | modus tollen | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, as if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building and no security camera captured the suspect entering the building.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, so it can be concluded that no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow. | If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | modus tollen | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, so it can be concluded that no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the squirrel then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and the dog is barking at the squirrel, which implies that a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house. | If the dog is barking at the squirrel then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | The dog is barking at the squirrel | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the squirrel | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the squirrel then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and the dog is barking at the squirrel, which implies that a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The apple is not red, as if the apple is red then the cat is black and the cat is not black. | If the apple is red then the cat is black | The cat is not black | The apple is not red | modus tollen | The apple is red | The cat is black | The apple is not red | The cat is not black | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The apple is not red, as if the apple is red then the cat is black and the cat is not black.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, as if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems and the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | modus tollen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, as if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems and the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a romance novel then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the book is a romance novel, thus the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data. | If the book is a romance novel then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The book is a romance novel | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | modus ponen | The book is a romance novel | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The book is not a romance novel | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a romance novel then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the book is a romance novel, thus the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, since if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | modus tollen | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, since if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking. | If the dog is barking then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The dog is not barking | modus tollen | The dog is barking | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The dog is not barking | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, which shows that laura's jewelry box was emptied. | If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then laura's jewelry box was emptied | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | modus ponen | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, which shows that laura's jewelry box was emptied.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the baby is playing with blocks, and the baby is not playing with blocks, which shows that the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect. | If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the baby is playing with blocks | The baby is not playing with blocks | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The baby is playing with blocks | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The baby is not playing with blocks | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the baby is playing with blocks, and the baby is not playing with blocks, which shows that the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, so the cat is purring contentedly on my lap. | If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | modus ponen | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, so the cat is purring contentedly on my lap.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, because if laura had a secret storage room in her house then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed and laura had a secret storage room in her house. | If laura had a secret storage room in her house then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | modus ponen | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, because if laura had a secret storage room in her house then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed and laura had a secret storage room in her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently, as if laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then the dog is barking loudly and the dog is not barking loudly. | If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then the dog is barking loudly | The dog is not barking loudly | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | modus tollen | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | The dog is barking loudly | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | The dog is not barking loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently, as if laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then the dog is barking loudly and the dog is not barking loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then it is raining today, and it is not raining today, thus richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery. | If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then it is raining today | It is not raining today | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | modus tollen | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | It is raining today | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | It is not raining today | 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 business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then it is raining today, and it is not raining today, thus richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for 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|>
|
A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, since if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store. | If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, since if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, and no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, so it can be concluded that richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles. | If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | modus tollen | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, and no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, so it can be concluded that richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, so it can be concluded that laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis. | If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis | The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | modus ponen | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, so it can be concluded that laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, so it can be concluded that emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder. | If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | modus tollen | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, so it can be concluded that emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, thus the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster. | If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | modus tollen | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, thus the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's name is laura martinez then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and the victim's name is laura martinez, so it can be concluded that the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery. | If the victim's name is laura martinez then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The victim's name is laura martinez | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | modus ponen | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | 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 victim's name is laura martinez then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and the victim's name is laura martinez, so it can be concluded 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 emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, hence a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect. | If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | modus ponen | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, hence a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck, because if the dog is barking at the mail truck then laura's phone records show calls to 911 and laura's phone records do not show calls to 911. | If the dog is barking at the mail truck then laura's phone records show calls to 911 | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mail truck | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | 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 mail truck, because if the dog is barking at the mail truck then laura's phone records show calls to 911 and laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, therefore a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning. | If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | modus ponen | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, therefore a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, which establishes that laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats. | If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | modus ponen | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, which establishes that laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is not barking at the mail truck, thus the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail. | If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the dog is barking at the mail truck | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | modus tollen | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The dog is barking at the mail truck | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | 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 the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is not barking at the mail truck, thus the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the cat is sleeping in the sun, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, therefore the cat is sleeping in the sun. | If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the cat is sleeping in the sun | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The cat is sleeping in the sun | modus ponen | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The cat is sleeping in the sun | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the cat is sleeping in the sun, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, therefore the cat is sleeping in the sun.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which establishes that emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon. | If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | modus ponen | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | 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 victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which establishes 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|>
|
A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, because if a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home. | If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | 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 | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, because if a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.```<|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 a flickering light inside laura's house then the book is on the table, and the book is not on the table, therefore no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house. | If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the book is on the table | The book is not on the table | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The book is on the table | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The book is not on the table | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the book is on the table, and the book is not on the table, therefore no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, so it can be concluded that no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park. | If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the movie is a comedy-drama | The movie is not a comedy-drama | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | modus tollen | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The movie is a comedy-drama | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The movie is not a comedy-drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, so it can be concluded that no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, hence the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary. | If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | modus tollen | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, hence the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is nice then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which shows that the weather is not nice. | If the weather is nice then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The weather is not nice | modus tollen | The weather is nice | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The weather is not nice | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is nice then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which shows that the weather is not nice.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a romance novel then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, thus the book is not a romance novel. | If the book is a romance novel then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | The book is not a romance novel | modus tollen | The book is a romance novel | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | The book is not a romance novel | 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 book is a romance novel then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, thus the book is not a romance novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, therefore a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door. | If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | modus ponen | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, therefore 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|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.