Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street. stringlengths 74 421 | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street stringlengths 36 192 | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 788 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street stringclasses 788 values | modus ponen stringclasses 2 values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1 stringclasses 394 values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street stringclasses 394 values | True bool 1 class | text stringlengths 453 800 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the baby is playing with a toy car, and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, so it can be concluded that the baby is playing with a toy car. | If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the baby is playing with a toy car | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The baby is playing with a toy car | modus ponen | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The baby is playing with a toy car | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | 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: ```If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the baby is playing with a toy car, and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, so it can be concluded that the baby is 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|>
|
A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, since if a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night. | If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, since if a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night.```<|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 fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and the murder weapon was not a baseball bat, which establishes that a fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect. | If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then the murder weapon was a baseball bat | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | modus tollen | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and the murder weapon was not a baseball bat, which establishes that a fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, therefore no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the cat is grooming itself | The cat is not grooming itself | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus tollen | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | The cat is grooming itself | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | The cat is not grooming itself | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, therefore no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the baby is crying in the stroller, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, so the baby is crying in the stroller. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the baby is crying in the stroller | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The baby is crying in the stroller | modus ponen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The baby is crying in the stroller | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The baby is not crying in the stroller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the baby is crying in the stroller, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, so 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 gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, hence a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park. | If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | modus ponen | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, hence a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, because if the sun is shining then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime and the sun is shining. | If the sun is shining then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The sun is shining | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | modus ponen | The sun is shining | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The sun is not shining | 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, because if the sun is shining then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime 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|>
|
If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, thus a neighbor heard a gunshot. | If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then a neighbor heard a gunshot | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | A neighbor heard a gunshot | modus ponen | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | A neighbor heard a gunshot | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | 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 smelling gasoline near laura's house then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, thus a neighbor heard a gunshot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, therefore the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted. | If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | modus ponen | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, therefore the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, because if a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen. | If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | modus ponen | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, because if a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, so it can be concluded that the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity. | If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, so it can be concluded that the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then laura had installed a home security system, and laura had not installed a home security system, which establishes that the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars. | If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then laura had installed a home security system | Laura had not installed a home security system | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | modus tollen | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | Laura had installed a home security system | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | Laura had not installed a home security system | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then laura had installed a home security system, and laura had not installed a home security system, which establishes that the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is grooming itself then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, and the cat is grooming itself, so it can be concluded that a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If the cat is grooming itself then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | The cat is grooming itself | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | modus ponen | The cat is grooming itself | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | The cat is not grooming itself | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is grooming itself then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, and the cat is grooming itself, so it can be concluded that a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, which implies that john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest. | If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet | Officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | modus tollen | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, which implies that john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and a broken chair was not found in the kitchen, thus no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then a broken chair was found in the kitchen | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and a broken chair was not found in the kitchen, thus no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, thus a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment. | If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | modus ponen | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, thus a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, so it can be concluded that the weather is not mild and pleasant. | If the weather is mild and pleasant then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | The weather is not mild and pleasant | modus tollen | The weather is mild and pleasant | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | The weather is not mild and pleasant | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is mild and pleasant then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, so it can be concluded that the weather is not mild and pleasant.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and the sun is setting slowly, so it can be concluded that laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal. | If the sun is setting slowly then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | The sun is setting slowly | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | modus ponen | The sun is setting slowly | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | The sun is not setting slowly | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and the sun is setting slowly, so it can be concluded that laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal.```<|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 house was booby-trapped then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and laura's house was booby-trapped, so it can be concluded that the murder weapon was a baseball bat. | If laura's house was booby-trapped then the murder weapon was a baseball bat | Laura's house was booby-trapped | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | modus ponen | Laura's house was booby-trapped | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's house was booby-trapped then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and laura's house was booby-trapped, so it can be concluded that the murder weapon was a baseball bat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, as if the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident. | If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | modus ponen | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, as if the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, which shows that the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim. | If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, which shows that the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to 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 witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the dog is not barking at the neighbors, hence no witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene. | If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then the dog is barking at the neighbors | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | modus tollen | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The dog is barking at the neighbors | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the dog is not barking at the neighbors, hence no witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's passport is missing then cats are mammals, and cats are not mammals, hence laura's passport is not missing. | If laura's passport is missing then cats are mammals | Cats are not mammals | Laura's passport is not missing | modus tollen | Laura's passport is missing | Cats are mammals | Laura's passport is not missing | Cats are not mammals | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's passport is missing then cats are mammals, and cats are not mammals, hence laura's passport is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the baby is crawling, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, so the baby is crawling. | If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the baby is crawling | A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | The baby is crawling | modus ponen | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | The baby is crawling | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | The baby is not crawling | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the baby is crawling, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, so the baby is crawling.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then laura's laptop was found smashed, and laura's laptop was not found smashed, therefore the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago. | If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then laura's laptop was found smashed | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | modus tollen | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | 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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then laura's laptop was found smashed, and laura's laptop was not found smashed, therefore the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis has a history of violent behavior then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, thus a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id. | If john davis has a history of violent behavior then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | John davis has a history of violent behavior | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | modus ponen | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis has a history of violent behavior then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, thus a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a secret storage unit then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene, which implies that john davis did not have a secret storage unit. | If john davis had a secret storage unit then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | modus tollen | John Davis had a secret storage unit | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a secret storage unit then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene, which implies that john davis did not have a secret storage unit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is a collection of short stories, since if the dog is barking at the squirrel then the book is a collection of short stories and the dog is barking at the squirrel. | If the dog is barking at the squirrel then the book is a collection of short stories | The dog is barking at the squirrel | The book is a collection of short stories | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the squirrel | The book is a collection of short stories | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | The book is not a collection of short stories | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is a collection of short stories, since if the dog is barking at the squirrel then the book is a collection of short stories and the dog is barking at the squirrel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 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 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 | 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 neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | 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 a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence 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 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 stolen van was registered in a fake name then the book is interesting, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, which implies that the book is interesting. | If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the book is interesting | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The book is interesting | modus ponen | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The book is interesting | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | The book is not interesting | 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 van was registered in a fake name then the book is interesting, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, which implies that the book is interesting.```<|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 bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, so it can be concluded that the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery. | If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | modus ponen | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, so it can be concluded that the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the television then laura's garage door was left open, and laura's garage door was not left open, thus the dog is not barking at the television. | If the dog is barking at the television then laura's garage door was left open | Laura's garage door was not left open | The dog is not barking at the television | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the television | Laura's garage door was left open | The dog is not barking at the television | Laura's garage door was not left open | 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 television then laura's garage door was left open, and laura's garage door was not left open, thus the dog is not barking at the television.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the water is warm then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home, so it can be concluded that the water is not warm. | If the water is warm then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | The water is not warm | modus tollen | The water is warm | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The water is not warm | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the water is warm then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home, so it can be concluded that the water is not warm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, because if dogs are not fish then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment and dogs are not fish. | If dogs are not fish then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment | Dogs are not fish | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | modus ponen | Dogs are not fish | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | Dogs are fish | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, because if dogs are not fish then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment and dogs are not fish.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, which implies that the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect. | If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | modus tollen | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | 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 victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, which implies that the victim's will had not 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 bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, since if the cat is black then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard and the cat is black. | If the cat is black then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | The cat is black | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | modus ponen | The cat is black | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | The cat is not black | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, since if the cat is black then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard and the cat is black.```<|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 threats from john, because if laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead and the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead. | If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | modus tollen | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | 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 threats from john, because if laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead and the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, thus the stolen van was registered in a fake name. | If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | modus ponen | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, thus the stolen van was registered in a fake name.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a history of stalking other women, since if john davis had a history of stalking other women then the book is a memoir and the book is not a memoir. | If john davis had a history of stalking other women then the book is a memoir | The book is not a memoir | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | The book is a memoir | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | The book is not a memoir | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a history of stalking other women, since if john davis had a history of stalking other women then the book is a memoir and the book is not a memoir.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, because if a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair. | If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus ponen | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, because if a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, so the movie is a comedy-drama. | If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the movie is a comedy-drama | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The movie is a comedy-drama | modus ponen | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The movie is a comedy-drama | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | The movie is not a comedy-drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, so the movie is a comedy-drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, hence detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement. | If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is not barking at the mailman | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | modus tollen | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | The dog is barking at the mailman | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | The dog is not barking at the mailman | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, hence detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's passport is missing then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and laura's passport is missing, which establishes that officer brown discovered a hidden basement. | If laura's passport is missing then officer brown discovered a hidden basement | Laura's passport is missing | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | modus ponen | Laura's passport is missing | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | Laura's passport is not missing | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's passport is missing then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and laura's passport is missing, which establishes that officer brown discovered a hidden basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then laura's mail was tampered with, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, therefore laura's mail was tampered with. | If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then laura's mail was tampered with | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | Laura's mail was tampered with | modus ponen | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | Laura's mail was tampered with | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | Laura's mail was not tampered with | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then laura's mail was tampered with, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, therefore laura's mail was tampered with.```<|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 pizza is hot then the cat is sleeping soundly, and the cat is not sleeping soundly, which establishes that the pizza is not hot. | If the pizza is hot then the cat is sleeping soundly | The cat is not sleeping soundly | The pizza is not hot | modus tollen | The pizza is hot | The cat is sleeping soundly | The pizza is not hot | The cat is not sleeping soundly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the pizza is hot then the cat is sleeping soundly, and the cat is not sleeping soundly, which establishes that the pizza is not hot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, because if footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet and no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet. | If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | modus tollen | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, because if footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet and no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, as if the movie is a thriller then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information and the movie is a thriller. | If the movie is a thriller then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The movie is a thriller | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | modus ponen | The movie is a thriller | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The movie is not a thriller | 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, as if the movie is a thriller then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information and the movie is a thriller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor heard a gunshot then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, thus a neighbor did not hear a gunshot. | If a neighbor heard a gunshot then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | modus tollen | A neighbor heard a gunshot | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor heard a gunshot then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, thus a neighbor did not hear a gunshot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the book is on the table, and the book is not on the table, thus the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user. | If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the book is on the table | The book is not on the table | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | modus tollen | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | The book is on the table | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | The book is not on the table | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the book is on the table, and the book is not on the table, thus the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, since if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle and a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | modus tollen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | 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: ```No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, since if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle and a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is crying loudly, because if laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the baby is crying loudly and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone. | If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the baby is crying loudly | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The baby is crying loudly | modus ponen | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The baby is crying loudly | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | The baby is not crying loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is crying loudly, because if laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the baby is crying loudly and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a secret storage unit, as if the sky is blue then john davis had a secret storage unit and the sky is blue. | If the sky is blue then john davis had a secret storage unit | The sky is blue | John Davis had a secret storage unit | modus ponen | The sky is blue | John Davis had a secret storage unit | The sky is not blue | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a secret storage unit, as if the sky is blue then john davis had a secret storage unit and the sky is blue.```<|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 john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which establishes that john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit. | If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus ponen | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | 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 neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which establishes that 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 alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair, thus the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery. | If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | modus tollen | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair, thus the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, which implies that the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago. | If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | modus ponen | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, which implies that the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, hence a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing. | If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | modus tollen | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, hence a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, because if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone and john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone. | If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | John davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | modus tollen | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, because if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone and john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is teething on a toy, as if the dog is barking then the baby is teething on a toy and the dog is barking. | If the dog is barking then the baby is teething on a toy | The dog is barking | The baby is teething on a toy | modus ponen | The dog is barking | The baby is teething on a toy | The dog is not barking | The baby is not teething on a toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is teething on a toy, as if the dog is barking then the baby is teething on a toy 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 the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, which establishes that the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim. | If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | 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: ```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, which establishes that the suspect had 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 captured the suspect following the victim then the book is a collection of short stories, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, which implies that the book is a collection of short stories. | If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the book is a collection of short stories | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The book is a collection of short stories | modus ponen | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The book is a collection of short stories | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The book is not a collection of short stories | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the book is a collection of short stories, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, which implies that the book is a collection of short stories.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, so laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident. | If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | modus ponen | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, so laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, because if the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the weather is cloudy and rainy and the weather is not cloudy and rainy. | If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the weather is cloudy and rainy | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | modus tollen | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The weather is cloudy and rainy | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, because if the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the weather is cloudy and rainy and the weather is not cloudy and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, therefore no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | modus tollen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, therefore no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a mystery novel then the movie is a science fiction film, and the movie is not a science fiction film, so the book is not a mystery novel. | If the book is a mystery novel then the movie is a science fiction film | The movie is not a science fiction film | The book is not a mystery novel | modus tollen | The book is a mystery novel | The movie is a science fiction film | The book is not a mystery novel | 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: ```If the book is a mystery novel then the movie is a science fiction film, and the movie is not a science fiction film, so the book is not a mystery novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly overhead then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, hence the sun is not shining brightly overhead. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly overhead then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, hence the sun is not shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, as if laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car and laura's car was found with a slashed tire. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | modus ponen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, as if laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car and laura's car was found with a slashed tire.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, because if the dog is barking at the mail truck then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway and the dog is barking at the mail truck. | If the dog is barking at the mail truck then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | The dog is barking at the mail truck | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the mail truck | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, because if the dog is barking at the mail truck then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway and the dog is barking at the mail truck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then sally is older than john, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, which implies that sally is older than john. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then sally is older than john | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | Sally is older than John | modus ponen | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | Sally is older than John | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | Sally is not older than John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then sally is older than john, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, which implies that sally is older than john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, as if a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal. | If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, as if a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The murder weapon was not a baseball bat, since if the murder weapon was a baseball bat then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house. | If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | modus tollen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | 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: ```The murder weapon was not a baseball bat, since if the murder weapon was a baseball bat then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside 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|>
|
The suspect's name is john davis, since if laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the suspect's name is john davis and laura had recently changed her social media passwords. | If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the suspect's name is john davis | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The suspect's name is John Davis | modus ponen | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The suspect's name is John Davis | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | The suspect's name is not John Davis | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's name is john davis, since if laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the suspect's name is john davis and laura had recently changed her social media passwords.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, since if the dog is barking then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and the dog is barking. | If the dog is barking then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The dog is barking | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | modus ponen | The dog is barking | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The dog is not barking | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, since if the dog is barking then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors 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|>
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home and no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | modus tollen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | No handwritten letter containing threats was 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: ```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home and no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If it is raining today then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and it is raining today, so it can be concluded that a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby. | If it is raining today then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | It is raining today | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | modus ponen | It is raining today | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | It is not raining today | 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 it is raining today then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and it is raining today, so it can be concluded that a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, thus laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone. | If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | modus ponen | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, thus laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining through the window then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the sun is shining through the window, which implies that the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon. | If the sun is shining through the window then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The sun is shining through the window | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | modus ponen | The sun is shining through the window | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The sun is not shining through the window | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining through the window then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the sun is shining through the window, which implies that the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to 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 victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the sun is shining, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, thus the sun is shining. | If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the sun is shining | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The sun is shining | modus ponen | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The sun is shining | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | The sun is not shining | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the sun is shining, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, thus the sun is shining.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis, hence a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home. | If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis | Laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | modus tollen | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | 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 a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis, hence a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with toys then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, so the baby is not playing with toys. | If the baby is playing with toys then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | The baby is not playing with toys | modus tollen | The baby is playing with toys | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | The baby is not playing with toys | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with toys then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, so the baby is not playing with toys.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then laura had installed a home security system, and laura had not installed a home security system, so 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 laura had installed a home security system | Laura had not installed a home security system | 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 | Laura had installed a home security system | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | Laura had not installed a home security system | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then laura had installed a home security system, and laura had not installed a home security system, so 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|>
|
No suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, since if a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror and no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror. | If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | No threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | modus tollen | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, since if a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror and no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, which shows that no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone. | If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the baby is crawling | The baby is not crawling | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | modus tollen | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | The baby is crawling | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | The baby is not crawling | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, which shows that no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, which implies that the sun is not shining brightly in the sky. | If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, which implies that the sun is not shining brightly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the car is parked on the street, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which implies that the car is parked on the street. | If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the car is parked on the street | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The car is parked on the street | modus ponen | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The car is parked on the street | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The car is not parked on the street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the car is parked on the street, and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which implies that the car is parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, as if witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse. | If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | modus tollen | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, as if witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, as if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. | If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace | The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | modus ponen | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, as if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house, which shows that the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house | A neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house, which shows that the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not laughing at the toy, because if the baby is laughing at the toy then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene and footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene. | If the baby is laughing at the toy then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene | Footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene | The baby is not laughing at the toy | modus tollen | The baby is laughing at the toy | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | The baby is not laughing at the toy | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not laughing at the toy, because if the baby is laughing at the toy then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene and footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, therefore a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park. | If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, therefore a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, as if the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house and no witness heard screams coming from laura's house. | If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house | No witness heard screams coming from laura's house | 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 witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, as if the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house and no witness heard screams coming from laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, hence the book is not written by a famous author. | If the book is written by a famous author then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | John davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | The book is not written by a famous author | modus tollen | The book is written by a famous author | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | The book is not written by a famous author | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, hence the book is not 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|>
|
A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, since if john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs. | If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction | John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | modus ponen | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | 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: ```A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, since if john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, since if the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene. | If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | modus tollen | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence 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: ```The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, since if the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, which establishes that a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace. | If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | modus ponen | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, which establishes that a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker, which implies that 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 store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | The suspect'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 store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker, which implies that 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 a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, so the weather is cloudy and rainy. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the weather is cloudy and rainy | A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | The weather is cloudy and rainy | modus ponen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | The weather is cloudy and rainy | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, so the weather is cloudy and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was found with a bag of cash then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, which implies that john davis was not found with a bag of cash. | If john davis was found with a bag of cash then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | modus tollen | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | 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 john davis was found with a bag of cash then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, which implies that john davis was not found with a bag of cash.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, therefore a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine. | If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | modus ponen | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, therefore a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, since if the football is round then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs and the football is round. | If the football is round then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | The football is round | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | modus ponen | The football is round | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | The football is not round | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, since if the football is round then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs and the football is round.```<|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 laptop was found smashed then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and laura's laptop was found smashed, therefore john davis had a history of substance abuse. | If laura's laptop was found smashed then john davis had a history of substance abuse | Laura's laptop was found smashed | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | modus ponen | Laura's laptop was found smashed | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | 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 laura's laptop was found smashed then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and laura's laptop was found smashed, therefore 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|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.