Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street. stringlengths 74 421 | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street stringlengths 36 192 | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 788 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street stringclasses 788 values | modus ponen stringclasses 2 values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1 stringclasses 394 values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street stringclasses 394 values | True bool 1 class | text stringlengths 453 800 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, so a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings. | If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | modus tollen | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, so a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is eating food then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo, so the cat is not eating food. | If the cat is eating food then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo | A homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo | The cat is not eating food | modus tollen | The cat is eating food | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | The cat is not eating food | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is eating food then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo, so the cat is not eating food.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a documentary then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the weather is not cloudy and rainy, which implies that the movie is not a documentary. | If the movie is a documentary then the weather is cloudy and rainy | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | The movie is not a documentary | modus tollen | The movie is a documentary | The weather is cloudy and rainy | The movie is not a documentary | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a documentary then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the weather is not cloudy and rainy, which implies that the movie is not a documentary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of anger management issues then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, so it can be concluded that a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard. | If john davis had a history of anger management issues then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | John davis had a history of anger management issues | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of anger management issues then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, so it can be concluded that a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, therefore john davis had a cache of illegal firearms. | If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | modus ponen | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | 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 remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, therefore john davis had a cache of illegal firearms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a romance novel then the movie is a musical film, and the movie is not a musical film, so it can be concluded that the book is not a romance novel. | If the book is a romance novel then the movie is a musical film | The movie is not a musical film | The book is not a romance novel | modus tollen | The book is a romance novel | The movie is a musical film | The book is not a romance novel | The movie is not a musical film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a romance novel then the movie is a musical film, and the movie is not a musical film, so it can be concluded that the book is not a romance novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the dog is not barking at the neighbors, which establishes that the cat is not purring. | If the cat is purring then the dog is barking at the neighbors | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | The cat is not purring | modus tollen | The cat is purring | The dog is barking at the neighbors | The cat is not purring | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the dog is not barking at the neighbors, which establishes that the cat is not purring.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, because if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags. | If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus ponen | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, because if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man and 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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, 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 a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | modus tollen | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, 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|>
|
The sun is not shining, because if the sun is shining then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene and the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. | If the sun is shining then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The sun is not shining | modus tollen | The sun is shining | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The sun is not shining | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not shining, because if the sun is shining then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene and the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone, thus officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene. | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | modus tollen | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone, thus officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the movie is a thriller, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, so it can be concluded that the movie is a thriller. | If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the movie is a thriller | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | The movie is a thriller | modus ponen | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | The movie is a thriller | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | The movie is not a thriller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the movie is a thriller, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, so it can be concluded that the movie is a thriller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and no witness heard screams coming from laura's house, therefore the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime. | If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house | No witness heard screams coming from laura's house | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | modus tollen | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and no witness heard screams coming from laura's house, therefore the victim's bank account did not show 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|>
|
John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, as if a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | modus ponen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, as if a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the door then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, and the baby is crawling towards the door, which implies that the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim. | If the baby is crawling towards the door then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The baby is crawling towards the door | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the door | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The baby is not crawling towards the door | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the door then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, and the baby is crawling towards the door, which implies that 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|>
|
The movie is a horror film, as if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the movie is a horror film and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft. | If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the movie is a horror film | Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | The movie is a horror film | modus ponen | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | The movie is a horror film | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | The movie is not a horror film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is a horror film, as if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the movie is a horror film and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for 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 weather is hot and humid then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, which establishes that the weather is not hot and humid. | If the weather is hot and humid then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The weather is not hot and humid | modus tollen | The weather is hot and humid | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The weather is not hot and humid | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is hot and humid then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, which establishes that the weather is not hot and humid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van, therefore the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect. | If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van, therefore the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura's passport is missing, and laura's passport is not missing, which shows that the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement. | If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura's passport is missing | Laura's passport is not missing | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | modus tollen | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Laura's passport is missing | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | Laura's passport is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura's passport is missing, and laura's passport is not missing, which shows that the victim's laptop did not contain 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|>
|
A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, because if the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m. | If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | modus ponen | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | 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: ```A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, because if the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, thus a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder. | If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | modus ponen | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home 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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, thus a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home 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 it is raining today then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, so it is not raining today. | If it is raining today then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | It is not raining today | modus tollen | It is raining today | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | It is not raining today | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If it is raining today then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, so it is not raining today.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, which shows that the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery. | If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | modus ponen | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, which shows that the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, as if laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house and laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident. | If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | modus ponen | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | 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: ```A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, as if laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house and 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 the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, which shows that john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe. | If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | modus ponen | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, which shows that john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a thriller, as if the movie is a thriller then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk and detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk. | If the movie is a thriller then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk | Detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk | The movie is not a thriller | modus tollen | The movie is a thriller | Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | The movie is not a thriller | Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a thriller, as if the movie is a thriller then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk and detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of identity theft then laura's pet cat is missing, and laura's pet cat is not missing, which shows that john davis did not have a history of identity theft. | If john davis had a history of identity theft then laura's pet cat is missing | Laura's pet cat is not missing | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of identity theft | Laura's pet cat is missing | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | Laura's pet cat is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of identity theft then laura's pet cat is missing, and laura's pet cat is not missing, which shows that 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 suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, which establishes that a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene. | If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | modus ponen | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, which establishes that a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's laptop was not found smashed, since if laura's laptop was found smashed then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment and no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment. | If laura's laptop was found smashed then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | modus tollen | Laura's laptop was found smashed | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's laptop was not found smashed, since if laura's laptop was found smashed then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment and no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, therefore the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment. | If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | modus tollen | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | 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 victim's car keys were missing from their apartment 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, therefore the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sky is blue then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and the sky is blue, which implies that john davis had a history of stalking other women. | If the sky is blue then john davis had a history of stalking other women | The sky is blue | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | modus ponen | The sky is blue | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | The sky is not blue | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sky is blue then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and the sky is blue, which implies that john davis had a history of stalking other women.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's passport is missing then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which shows that laura's passport is not missing. | If laura's passport is missing then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | Laura's passport is not missing | modus tollen | Laura's passport is missing | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | Laura's passport is not missing | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's passport is missing then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which shows that laura's passport is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, which establishes that footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene. | If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | modus tollen | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, which establishes that footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, hence the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect. | If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | modus ponen | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, hence the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the football is round then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and the football is round, which implies that john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone. | If the football is round then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | The football is round | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | modus ponen | The football is round | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The football is not round | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the football is round then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and the football is round, which implies that john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, which establishes that a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house. | If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | modus ponen | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, which establishes that a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 it can be concluded that 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 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 | 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 homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 it can be concluded that 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|>
|
The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, since if the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then a gas leak was detected in the basement and a gas leak was not detected in the basement. | If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then a gas leak was detected in the basement | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | 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 | A gas leak was detected in the basement | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, since if the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then a gas leak was detected in the basement and a gas leak was not detected in the basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the tree is shedding leaves, and the tree is not shedding leaves, thus the cat is not sleeping in the sun. | If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the tree is shedding leaves | The tree is not shedding leaves | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping in the sun | The tree is shedding leaves | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | 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 the cat is sleeping in the sun then the tree is shedding leaves, and the tree is not shedding leaves, thus the cat is not sleeping in the sun.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is shining brightly in the sky, because if detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the sun is shining brightly in the sky and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk. | If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the sun is shining brightly in the sky | Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | modus ponen | Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | 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: ```The sun is shining brightly in the sky, because if detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then the sun is shining brightly in the sky and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, and detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, hence a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby. | If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | Detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | modus tollen | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, and detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, hence a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a drama then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, and surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, which establishes that the movie is not a drama. | If the movie is a drama then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The movie is not a drama | modus tollen | The movie is a drama | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The movie is not a drama | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a drama then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, and surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, which establishes that the movie is not a drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the computer is on, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, which implies that the computer is on. | If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the computer is on | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The computer is on | modus ponen | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The computer is on | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The computer is not on | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the computer is on, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, which implies that the computer is on.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, thus laura's laptop was not found smashed. | If laura's laptop was found smashed then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | modus tollen | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, thus laura's laptop was not found smashed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the sun is shining brightly, so it can be concluded that the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses. | If the sun is shining brightly then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The sun is shining brightly | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | modus ponen | The sun is shining brightly | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The sun is not shining brightly | 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 the sun is shining brightly then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the sun is shining brightly, so it can be concluded that 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 the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, hence the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, hence the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years.```<|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 restraining order violation in the past, as if a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene. | If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | modus ponen | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | 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 restraining order violation in the past, as if a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking. | If the dog is barking then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | Officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The dog is not barking | modus tollen | The dog is barking | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The dog is not barking | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone, which shows that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | modus tollen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone, which shows that a forensic expert did not identify 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|>
|
The car is a sedan, as if officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the car is a sedan and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store. | If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the car is a sedan | Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The car is a sedan | modus ponen | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The car is a sedan | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind 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: ```The car is a sedan, as if officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the car is a sedan and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, since if john davis had a history of financial problems then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and john davis had a history of financial problems. | If john davis had a history of financial problems then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | John davis had a history of financial problems | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of financial problems | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, since if john davis had a history of financial problems then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and john davis had a history of financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the computer is on then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, therefore the computer is not on. | If the computer is on then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The computer is not on | modus tollen | The computer is on | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The computer is not on | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at 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 computer is on then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, therefore the computer is not on.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not crying loudly, as if the baby is crying loudly then the pizza is hot and the pizza is not hot. | If the baby is crying loudly then the pizza is hot | The pizza is not hot | The baby is not crying loudly | modus tollen | The baby is crying loudly | The pizza is hot | The baby is not crying loudly | The pizza is not hot | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not crying loudly, as if the baby is crying loudly then the pizza is hot and the pizza is not hot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking at the door, because if a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the dog is barking at the door and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house. | If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the dog is barking at the door | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | The dog is barking at the door | modus ponen | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | The dog is barking at the door | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | The dog is not barking at the door | 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 barking at the door, because if a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the dog is barking at the door and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near 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 cat is purring contentedly then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, and officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store, which implies that the cat is not purring contentedly. | If the cat is purring contentedly then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | Officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | The cat is not purring contentedly | modus tollen | The cat is purring contentedly | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | The cat is not purring contentedly | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring contentedly then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, and officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store, which implies that the cat is not 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|>
|
Sally is not older than john, because if sally is older than john then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit and john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit. | If sally is older than john then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | John davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | Sally is not older than John | modus tollen | Sally is older than John | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | Sally is not older than John | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sally is not older than john, because if sally is older than john then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit and 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 had a cache of illegal firearms then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, so john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms. | If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | modus tollen | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, so john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a musical film then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and the movie is a musical film, which implies that sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy. | If the movie is a musical film then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The movie is a musical film | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | modus ponen | The movie is a musical film | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The movie is not a musical film | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a musical film then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and the movie is a musical film, which implies that sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, which establishes that emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | modus ponen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, which establishes that emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, hence the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail. | If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | modus tollen | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, hence the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a science fiction film, because if the movie is a science fiction film then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime. | If the movie is a science fiction film then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | The movie is not a science fiction film | modus tollen | The movie is a science fiction film | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The movie is not a science fiction film | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a science fiction film, because if the movie is a science fiction film then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar 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 pizza is not hot, as if the pizza is hot then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene. | If the pizza is hot then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The pizza is not hot | modus tollen | The pizza is hot | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The pizza is not hot | 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: ```The pizza is not hot, as if the pizza is hot then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene and a forensic expert did not identify 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 the sun is shining brightly overhead then the victim's name is laura martinez, and the victim's name is not laura martinez, which shows that the sun is not shining brightly overhead. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead then the victim's name is laura martinez | The victim's name is not laura martinez | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly overhead then the victim's name is laura martinez, and the victim's name is not laura martinez, which shows that the sun is not shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the computer is on then the football is round, and the computer is on, thus the football is round. | If the computer is on then the football is round | The computer is on | The football is round | modus ponen | The computer is on | The football is round | The computer is not on | 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: ```If the computer is on then the football is round, and the computer is on, thus the football is round.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is playing with toys, since if the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then the baby is playing with toys and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it. | If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then the baby is playing with toys | The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it | The baby is playing with toys | modus ponen | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | The baby is playing with toys | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | 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 murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then the baby is playing with toys and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, because if the baby is crawling towards the door then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information and the baby is crawling towards the door. | If the baby is crawling towards the door then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The baby is crawling towards the door | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the door | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The baby is not crawling towards the door | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, because if the baby is crawling towards the door then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information and the baby is crawling towards the 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 cat is sleeping on the couch then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, thus the cat is not sleeping on the couch. | If the cat is sleeping on the couch then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping on the couch | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby 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 sleeping on the couch then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, thus the cat is not sleeping on the couch.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then laura's garage door was left open, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, so it can be concluded that laura's garage door was left open. | If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then laura's garage door was left open | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | Laura's garage door was left open | modus ponen | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | Laura's garage door was left open | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | Laura's garage door was not left open | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then laura's garage door was left open, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, so it can be concluded that laura's garage door was left open.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, and no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, thus the sun is not shining brightly. | If the sun is shining brightly then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | The sun is not shining brightly | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | The sun is not shining brightly | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, and no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, thus the sun is not shining brightly.```<|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, because if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then paris is in france and paris is not in france. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then paris is in france | Paris is not in france | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | Paris is in France | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | Paris is not in France | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not setting slowly in the sky, because if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then paris is in france and 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 a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, which establishes that a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry. | If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | modus ponen | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, which establishes that a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.```<|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 gambling debts and financial problems, since if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization. | If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | modus ponen | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | 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: ```The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, since if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, so it can be concluded that the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data. | If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | No hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | modus tollen | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | 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 computer had been wiped clean of all data then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, so it can be concluded that the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine, which establishes that no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow. | If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine | A threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | modus tollen | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine, which establishes that no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, hence a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If laura's social media accounts were hacked then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | modus ponen | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's social media accounts were hacked then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, hence a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, thus a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby. | If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | modus ponen | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, thus a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, as if the dog is barking then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery and the dog is barking. | If the dog is barking then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The dog is barking | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | modus ponen | The dog is barking | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The dog is not barking | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, as if the dog is barking then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery and the dog is barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, because if a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene. | If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | modus ponen | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, because if a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe and 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|>
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, as if a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | modus ponen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | 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: ```The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, as if a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses and 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which establishes that surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | modus tollen | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which establishes that surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Dogs are fish, since if dogs are not fish then the baby is crying and the baby is not crying. | If dogs are not fish then the baby is crying | The baby is not crying | Dogs are fish | modus tollen | Dogs are not fish | The baby is crying | Dogs are fish | The baby is not crying | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Dogs are fish, since if dogs are not fish then the baby is crying and the baby is not crying.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store. | If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals, which shows that a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home. | If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | modus tollen | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals, which shows that a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, as if the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky and the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted. | If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | modus ponen | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | 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: ```Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, as if the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky and the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone, thus the dog is not barking at the mailman. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | The dog is not barking at the mailman | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mailman | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The dog is not barking at the mailman | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone, thus the dog is not barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, which implies that the sun is not shining. | If the sun is shining then emily had recently taken a self-defense course | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | The sun is not shining | modus tollen | The sun is shining | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The sun is not shining | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, which implies that the sun is not shining.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft, so it can be concluded that no threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace. | If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | modus tollen | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft, so it can be concluded that no threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the movie is a drama, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, so the movie is a drama. | If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the movie is a drama | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The movie is a drama | modus ponen | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The movie is a drama | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | The movie is not a drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the movie is a drama, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, so the movie is a drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, because if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect. | If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | modus ponen | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, because if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a sedan then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so it can be concluded that the car is not a sedan. | If the car is a sedan then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The car is not a sedan | modus tollen | The car is a sedan | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The car is not a sedan | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a sedan then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so it can be concluded that 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 a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, hence the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus ponen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, hence the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, hence the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data. | If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | modus ponen | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all 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 suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, hence the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, hence a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house. | If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | modus ponen | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | 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 a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, hence 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 officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the baby is crying, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the baby is crying. | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the baby is crying | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The baby is crying | modus ponen | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The baby is crying | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | The baby is not crying | 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 found a broken window at the crime scene then the baby is crying, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the baby is crying.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cloudy and rainy then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, which implies that the weather is not cloudy and rainy. | If the weather is cloudy and rainy then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | Sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | modus tollen | The weather is cloudy and rainy | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cloudy and rainy then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, which implies that the weather is not cloudy and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a science fiction film then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and the movie is a science fiction film, so it can be concluded that sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder. | If the movie is a science fiction film then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | The movie is a science fiction film | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | modus ponen | The movie is a science fiction film | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | The movie is not a science fiction film | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot 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 the movie is a science fiction film then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and the movie is a science fiction film, so it can be concluded that sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man 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, which shows that no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then 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 | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus tollen | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | 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 a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man 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, which shows that no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, so it can be concluded that emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder. | If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | modus tollen | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, so it can be concluded that emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, so it can be concluded that john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe. | If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | modus tollen | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, so it can be concluded that john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not sleeping, as if the baby is sleeping then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace. | If the baby is sleeping then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The baby is not sleeping | modus tollen | The baby is sleeping | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The baby is not sleeping | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not sleeping, as if the baby is sleeping then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.