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 john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, which shows that the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems. | If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | modus ponen | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, which shows that the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then laura's phone records show calls to 911, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, thus laura's phone records show calls to 911. | If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then laura's phone records show calls to 911 | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | modus ponen | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then laura's phone records show calls to 911, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, thus laura's phone records show calls to 911.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, as if detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park. | If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | modus ponen | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, as if detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, as if the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing. | If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | modus tollen | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, as if the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the weather is cold and snowy, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, therefore the weather is cold and snowy. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the weather is cold and snowy | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The weather is cold and snowy | modus ponen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The weather is cold and snowy | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The weather is not cold and snowy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the weather is cold and snowy, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, therefore the weather is cold and snowy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and the stolen van was registered in a fake name. | If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | modus ponen | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | Officer Smith did not find a broken window 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: ```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, since if the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and 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|>
|
If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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 implies that a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder. | If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | modus tollen | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | 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 a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder 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 implies that a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the baby is playing with blocks, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, which establishes that the baby is playing with blocks. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the baby is playing with blocks | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | The baby is playing with blocks | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | The baby is playing with blocks | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | The baby is not playing with blocks | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the baby is playing with blocks, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, which establishes that the baby is playing with blocks.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, therefore the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data. | If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | modus ponen | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, therefore the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, hence surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery. | If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then the movie is a comedy-drama | The movie is not a comedy-drama | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The movie is a comedy-drama | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | 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 surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, hence surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, so it can be concluded that laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions. | If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | modus ponen | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, so it can be concluded that laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the cat then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, and the baby is crawling towards the cat, therefore richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine. | If the baby is crawling towards the cat then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | The baby is crawling towards the cat | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the cat | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the cat then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, and the baby is crawling towards the cat, therefore richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a neighbor did not hear a gunshot, so it can be concluded that sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house. | If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a neighbor heard a gunshot | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | modus tollen | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | A neighbor heard a gunshot | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her 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 sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a neighbor did not hear a gunshot, so it can be concluded that 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 stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, since if the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then john davis had a history of identity theft and john davis did not have a history of identity theft. | If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then john davis had a history of identity theft | John davis did not have a history of identity theft | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | modus tollen | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | John Davis had a history of identity theft | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, since if the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then john davis had a history of identity theft and john davis did not have a history of identity theft.```<|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 dog next door then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky, which implies that the dog is not barking at the dog next door. | If the dog is barking at the dog next door then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the dog next door | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | 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 dog next door then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky, which implies that the dog is not barking at the dog next door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is laughing at the toy then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, thus the baby is not laughing at the toy. | If the baby is laughing at the toy then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The baby is not laughing at the toy | modus tollen | The baby is laughing at the toy | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The baby is not laughing at the toy | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is laughing at the toy then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, thus the baby is not laughing at the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's name is laura martinez then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, and no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, so it can be concluded that the victim's name is not laura martinez. | If the victim's name is laura martinez then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | modus tollen | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's name is laura martinez then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, and no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, so it can be concluded that the victim's name is not laura martinez.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then the tree is shedding leaves, and the tree is not shedding leaves, therefore sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily. | If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then the tree is shedding leaves | The tree is not shedding leaves | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | modus tollen | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | The tree is shedding leaves | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | The tree is not shedding leaves | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then the tree is shedding leaves, and the tree is not shedding leaves, therefore sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and john davis did not have a history of anger management issues, therefore the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect. | If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then john davis had a history of anger management issues | John davis did not have a history of anger management issues | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and john davis did not have a history of anger management issues, therefore the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, therefore a neighbor heard a gunshot. | If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then a neighbor heard a gunshot | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | A neighbor heard a gunshot | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | A neighbor heard a gunshot | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | 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 witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, therefore 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 a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle, so it can be concluded that a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox. | If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | modus tollen | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle, so it can be concluded that a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a history of violence against the victim, as if the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim. | If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | modus ponen | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a history of violence against the victim, as if the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow. | If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | modus tollen | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | Officer Smith did not find a broken window 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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, therefore emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder. | If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | modus ponen | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, therefore emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cloudy and rainy then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and the weather is cloudy and rainy, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene. | If the weather is cloudy and rainy then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The weather is cloudy and rainy | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | modus ponen | The weather is cloudy and rainy | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair 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 weather is cloudy and rainy then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and the weather is cloudy and rainy, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair 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 laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, so the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause. | If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | modus ponen | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, so the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, so it can be concluded that the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime. | If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | modus ponen | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, so it can be concluded that the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not barking at the television, because if the dog is barking at the television then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders and john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders. | If the dog is barking at the television then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders | John davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | The dog is not barking at the television | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the television | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | The dog is not barking at the television | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is not barking at the television, because if the dog is barking at the television then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders and john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had a secret storage room in her house then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and laura had a secret storage room in her house, so a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby. | If laura had a secret storage room in her house then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | modus ponen | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | 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 laura had a secret storage room in her house then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and laura had a secret storage room in her house, so 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 laura's passport is missing then the cat is purring loudly, and laura's passport is missing, hence the cat is purring loudly. | If laura's passport is missing then the cat is purring loudly | Laura's passport is missing | The cat is purring loudly | modus ponen | Laura's passport is missing | The cat is purring loudly | Laura's passport is not missing | The cat is not purring loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's passport is missing then the cat is purring loudly, and laura's passport is missing, hence the cat is purring loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the bird is singing 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, so the bird is not singing. | If the bird is singing 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 | The bird is not singing | modus tollen | The bird is singing | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The bird is not singing | 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: ```If the bird is singing 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, so the bird is not singing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is playing with toys, since if the baby is playing with a toy car then the baby is playing with toys and the baby is playing with a toy car. | If the baby is playing with a toy car then the baby is playing with toys | The baby is playing with a toy car | The baby is playing with toys | modus ponen | The baby is playing with a toy car | The baby is playing with toys | The baby is not playing with a toy car | The baby is not playing with toys | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is playing with toys, since if the baby is playing with a toy car then the baby is playing with toys and 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|>
|
If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, therefore the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses. | If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | modus ponen | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, therefore the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the book is a bestseller, and the book is not a bestseller, so no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the book is a bestseller | The book is not a bestseller | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | modus tollen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | The book is a bestseller | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | The book is not a bestseller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the book is a bestseller, and the book is not a bestseller, so 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 victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, which establishes that a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house. | If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | modus ponen | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, which establishes that a hidden cellar was discovered under 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 movie is a science fiction film then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and the movie is a science fiction film, which establishes that sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house. | If the movie is a science fiction film then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | The movie is a science fiction film | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | modus ponen | The movie is a science fiction film | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | The movie is not a science fiction film | 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 movie is a science fiction film then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and the movie is a science fiction film, which establishes that sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend'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|>
|
Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, as if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement. | If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | modus ponen | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, as if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the cat is not sleeping on the couch, which establishes that john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit. | If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the cat is sleeping on the couch | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus tollen | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The cat is sleeping on the couch | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the cat is not sleeping on the couch, which establishes that john davis was not 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 john davis has a history of violent behavior then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, hence john davis had a history of anger management issues. | If john davis has a history of violent behavior then john davis had a history of anger management issues | John davis has a history of violent behavior | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | modus ponen | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | 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 john davis had a history of anger management issues, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, hence john davis had a history of anger management issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The car is a sedan, as if john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the car is a sedan and john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape. | If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the car is a sedan | John davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The car is a sedan | modus ponen | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The car is a sedan | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | The car is not a sedan | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is a sedan, as if john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the car is a sedan and john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the bird is singing then the weather is nice, and the weather is not nice, which implies that the bird is not singing. | If the bird is singing then the weather is nice | The weather is not nice | The bird is not singing | modus tollen | The bird is singing | The weather is nice | The bird is not singing | The weather is not nice | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the bird is singing then the weather is nice, and the weather is not nice, which implies that the bird is not singing.```<|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 had recently taken a self-defense course then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and emily had recently taken a self-defense course, which establishes that the sun is shining brightly in the sky. | If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the sun is shining brightly in the sky | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | modus ponen | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and emily had recently taken a self-defense course, which establishes that the sun is 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 saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, so no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard. | If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | modus tollen | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, so no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, therefore the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery. | If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | modus ponen | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, therefore 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|>
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, as if fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop. | If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | modus ponen | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | 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: ```A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, as if fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, because if surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing. | If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, because if surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the cat is purring contentedly, and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which shows that the cat is purring contentedly. | If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the cat is purring contentedly | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The cat is purring contentedly | modus ponen | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The cat is purring contentedly | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The cat is not purring contentedly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the cat is purring contentedly, and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which shows that the cat is purring contentedly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, since if the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs. | If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | John davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | modus tollen | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, since if the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, hence a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession. | If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | modus tollen | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, hence a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.```<|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 the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and it is raining today, so it can be concluded that the sun is setting slowly in the sky. | If it is raining today then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | It is raining today | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | modus ponen | It is raining today | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | It is not raining today | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If it is raining today then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and it is raining today, so it can be concluded that the sun is setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, as if a gas leak was detected in the basement then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone and a gas leak was detected in the basement. | If a gas leak was detected in the basement then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | A gas leak was detected in the basement | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | modus ponen | A gas leak was detected in the basement | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | 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: ```John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, as if a gas leak was detected in the basement then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone and a gas leak was detected in the basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, thus a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror. | If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | modus ponen | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | 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: ```If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, thus a 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 the dog is barking at the mail truck then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and the dog is barking at the mail truck, so it can be concluded that laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident. | If the dog is barking at the mail truck then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | The dog is barking at the mail truck | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the mail truck | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | 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 dog is barking at the mail truck then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and the dog is barking at the mail truck, so it can be concluded that 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|>
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the movie is a musical film, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, which implies that the movie is a musical film. | If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the movie is a musical film | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings | The movie is a musical film | modus ponen | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | The movie is a musical film | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | The movie is not a musical film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the movie is a musical film, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, which implies that the movie is a musical film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which implies that john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape. | If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | modus tollen | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which implies that john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then the weather is cold and rainy, and the weather is not cold and rainy, so laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer. | If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then the weather is cold and rainy | The weather is not cold and rainy | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | modus tollen | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | The weather is cold and rainy | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | The weather is not cold 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 laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then the weather is cold and rainy, and the weather is not cold and rainy, so laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, therefore emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky. | If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | modus tollen | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, therefore emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The football is round, because if laura's house was booby-trapped then the football is round and laura's house was booby-trapped. | If laura's house was booby-trapped then the football is round | Laura's house was booby-trapped | The football is round | modus ponen | Laura's house was booby-trapped | The football is round | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | The football is not round | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The football is round, because if laura's house was booby-trapped then the football is round and laura's house was booby-trapped.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, so the sun is setting slowly in the sky. | If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | modus ponen | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, so the sun is setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, therefore the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary. | If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | Officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | modus tollen | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the 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 had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, therefore the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby. | If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | modus tollen | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Officer Smith did not find a broken window 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 bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which shows that no 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 movie is a horror film then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, and the movie is a horror film, so it can be concluded that a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night. | If the movie is a horror film then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | The movie is a horror film | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | modus ponen | The movie is a horror film | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | The movie is not a horror film | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a horror film then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, and the movie is a horror film, so it can be concluded that 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 laura's pet cat is missing then the tree is tall, and laura's pet cat is missing, so the tree is tall. | If laura's pet cat is missing then the tree is tall | Laura's pet cat is missing | The tree is tall | modus ponen | Laura's pet cat is missing | The tree is tall | Laura's pet cat is not missing | The tree is not tall | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's pet cat is missing then the tree is tall, and laura's pet cat is missing, so the tree is tall.```<|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 sleeping soundly on the bed then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, so laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal. | If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | modus ponen | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | 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 cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, so 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 a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, thus officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby. | If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | modus ponen | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, thus officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor heard a gunshot then john davis had a secret storage unit, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, which implies that john davis had a secret storage unit. | If a neighbor heard a gunshot then john davis had a secret storage unit | A neighbor heard a gunshot | John Davis had a secret storage unit | modus ponen | A neighbor heard a gunshot | John Davis had a secret storage unit | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor heard a gunshot then john davis had a secret storage unit, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, which implies that john davis had a secret storage unit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, as if a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair and a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | 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: ```A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, as if a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair and a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, hence a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace. | If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | modus tollen | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, hence a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, as if emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees and the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees. | If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | modus tollen | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, as if emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees and the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, so officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store. | If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | modus tollen | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, so officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is laughing at the toy then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and the baby is laughing at the toy, thus a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags. | If the baby is laughing at the toy then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | The baby is laughing at the toy | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | modus ponen | The baby is laughing at the toy | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | The baby is not laughing at the toy | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is laughing at the toy then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and the baby is laughing at the toy, thus a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the baby is crying in the car, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, therefore the baby is crying in the car. | If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the baby is crying in the car | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | The baby is crying in the car | modus ponen | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | The baby is crying in the car | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | The baby is not crying in the car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the baby is crying in the car, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, therefore the baby is crying in the car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the victim's name is not sarah mitchell, so it can be concluded that forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing. | If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the victim's name is sarah mitchell | The victim's name is not sarah mitchell | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | modus tollen | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the victim's name is not sarah mitchell, so it can be concluded that forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If paris is in france then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, and no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, hence paris is not in france. | If paris is in france then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car | No bloody shirt was found in john davis's car | Paris is not in France | modus tollen | Paris is in France | A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | Paris is not in France | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If paris is in france then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, and no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, hence paris is not in france.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park. | If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street | The arson did not occur on elm street | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | modus tollen | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The arson occurred on Elm Street | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, and the cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror, so it can be concluded that the book is not written by a famous author. | If the book is written by a famous author then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | The book is not written by a famous author | modus tollen | The book is written by a famous author | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | The book is not written by a famous author | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, and the cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror, so it can be concluded that 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|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, thus the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon. | If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | modus ponen | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | 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 suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, thus 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 a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, which implies that a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene. | If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | modus tollen | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, which implies that a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, hence a stolen car was reported near the crime scene. | If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene | A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | modus ponen | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, hence a stolen car was reported 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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, so it can be concluded that a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar. | If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar | Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles | A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar | modus ponen | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, so it can be concluded that a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, since if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily. | If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | modus ponen | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, since if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The eiffel tower is in paris, since if a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the eiffel tower is in paris and a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the eiffel tower is in paris | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The eiffel tower is in paris, since if a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the eiffel tower is in paris and a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring loudly then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, and the cat is purring loudly, which implies that a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop. | If the cat is purring loudly then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The cat is purring loudly | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | modus ponen | The cat is purring loudly | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The cat is not purring loudly | 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: ```If the cat is purring loudly then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, and the cat is purring loudly, which implies that a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, as if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then a broken chair was found in the kitchen and a broken chair was not found in the kitchen. | If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then a broken chair was found in the kitchen | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | modus tollen | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | 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: ```The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, as if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then a broken chair was found in the kitchen and a broken chair was not found in the kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then the movie is exciting, and the book is written by a famous author, which implies that the movie is exciting. | If the book is written by a famous author then the movie is exciting | The book is written by a famous author | The movie is exciting | modus ponen | The book is written by a famous author | The movie is exciting | The book is not written by a famous author | The movie is not exciting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then the movie is exciting, and the book is written by a famous author, which implies that the movie is exciting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, thus the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information. | If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | modus tollen | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, thus the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information.```<|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 sleeping, as if the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the baby is sleeping and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime. | If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the baby is sleeping | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The baby is sleeping | modus ponen | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The baby is sleeping | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | The baby is not sleeping | 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 sleeping, as if the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the baby is sleeping and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky, since if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then laura's jewelry box was emptied and laura's jewelry box was not emptied. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then laura's jewelry box was emptied | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not setting slowly in the sky, since if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then laura's jewelry box was emptied and laura's jewelry box was not emptied.```<|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 does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, as if a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder and the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder. | If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | modus tollen | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, as if a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder and the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, since if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then laura had a secret storage room in her house and laura did not have a secret storage room in her house. | If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then laura had a secret storage room in her house | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | modus tollen | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, since if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then laura had a secret storage room in her house and laura did not have a secret storage room in her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that officer brown did not discover a hidden basement. | If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the arson occurred on elm street | The arson did not occur on elm street | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | modus tollen | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | The arson occurred on Elm Street | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that officer brown did not discover a hidden basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, because if footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the car is a sedan and the car is not a sedan. | If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the car is a sedan | The car is not a sedan | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | modus tollen | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | The car is a sedan | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | The car is not a sedan | 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 the car is a sedan and the car is not a sedan.```<|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 cloudy and rainy then the sun is shining through the window, and the weather is cloudy and rainy, so the sun is shining through the window. | If the weather is cloudy and rainy then the sun is shining through the window | The weather is cloudy and rainy | The sun is shining through the window | modus ponen | The weather is cloudy and rainy | The sun is shining through the window | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | The sun is not shining through the window | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cloudy and rainy then the sun is shining through the window, and the weather is cloudy and rainy, so the sun is shining through the window.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is eating food, since if a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the cat is eating food and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle. | If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the cat is eating food | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | The cat is eating food | modus ponen | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | The cat is eating food | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | The cat is not eating food | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is eating food, since if a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the cat is eating food and a neighbor's security camera footage shows 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|>
|
If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, thus a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus ponen | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, thus a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, which implies that emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder. | If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | modus ponen | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, which implies that emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then laura had a life insurance policy, and laura did not have a life insurance policy, so a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine. | If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then laura had a life insurance policy | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | modus tollen | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | Laura had a life insurance policy | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then laura had a life insurance policy, and laura did not have a life insurance policy, so a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, so surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery. | If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits | A homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, so surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, so it can be concluded that a security camera captured the suspect entering the building. | If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | modus ponen | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, so it can be concluded that a security camera captured the suspect entering the building.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, because if detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | modus tollen | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, because if detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.