Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street. stringlengths 74 421 | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street stringlengths 36 192 | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 788 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street stringclasses 788 values | modus ponen stringclasses 2 values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1 stringclasses 394 values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street stringclasses 394 values | True bool 1 class | text stringlengths 453 800 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the baby is crying loudly, and the baby is not crying loudly, hence the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals. | If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the baby is crying loudly | The baby is not crying loudly | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The baby is crying loudly | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | The baby is not crying loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the baby is crying loudly, and the baby is not crying loudly, hence the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace, as if a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then john davis had a history of substance abuse and john davis did not have a history of substance abuse. | If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then john davis had a history of substance abuse | John davis did not have a history of substance abuse | 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 | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace, as if a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then john davis had a history of substance abuse and john davis did not have a history of substance abuse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, because if the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the sun is setting slowly and the sun is not setting slowly. | If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the sun is setting slowly | The sun is not setting slowly | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | modus tollen | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The sun is setting slowly | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The sun is not setting slowly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, because if the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the sun is setting slowly and the sun is not setting slowly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization, because if laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing. | If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | Sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | modus tollen | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | 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: ```Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization, because if laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, so the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees. | If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox | A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | modus tollen | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, so the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, since if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted and the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted. | If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | modus tollen | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, since if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted and the store's security footage was not 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 officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, so the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data. | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | modus ponen | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, so the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not crying in the car, as if the baby is crying in the car then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle and emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle. | If the baby is crying in the car then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The baby is not crying in the car | modus tollen | The baby is crying in the car | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The baby is not crying in the car | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | 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 in the car, as if the baby is crying in the car then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle and emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If dogs are not fish then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, hence dogs are fish. | If dogs are not fish then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | Dogs are fish | modus tollen | Dogs are not fish | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | Dogs are fish | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If dogs are not fish then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, hence dogs are fish.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cold and rainy 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, so it can be concluded that the weather is not cold and rainy. | If the weather is cold and rainy then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The weather is not cold and rainy | modus tollen | The weather is cold and rainy | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The weather is not cold and rainy | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and rainy 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, so it can be concluded that the weather is not cold 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 richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then laura's laptop was found smashed, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, which establishes that laura's laptop was found smashed. | If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then laura's laptop was found smashed | Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Laura's laptop was found smashed | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Laura's laptop was found smashed | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then laura's laptop was found smashed, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, which establishes that laura's laptop was 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 weather is cold and snowy then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, so the weather is not cold and snowy. | If the weather is cold and snowy then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | The weather is not cold and snowy | modus tollen | The weather is cold and snowy | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | The weather is not cold and snowy | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and snowy then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, so the weather is not cold and snowy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, which shows that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | modus tollen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | 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 a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, which shows that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day 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 hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, which establishes that no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house. | If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | modus tollen | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, which establishes that no 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 laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, which implies that john davis had a history of anger management issues. | If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then john davis had a history of anger management issues | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | modus ponen | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, which implies that john davis had a history of anger management issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a comedy-drama, as if the movie is a comedy-drama then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data and the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data. | If the movie is a comedy-drama then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | The movie is not a comedy-drama | modus tollen | The movie is a comedy-drama | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The movie is not a comedy-drama | 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: ```The movie is not a comedy-drama, as if the movie is a comedy-drama then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data and 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 the dog is barking then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking. | If the dog is barking then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | The dog is not barking | modus tollen | The dog is barking | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | The dog is not barking | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, 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 officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van, so it can be concluded that 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 neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | 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 neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | 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 officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van, so it can be concluded that 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 sun is shining brightly in the sky then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, and the sun is shining brightly in the sky, which shows that a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment. | If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | modus ponen | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, and the sun is shining brightly in the sky, which shows that a missing security camera was found hidden in emily'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 suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, hence the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the baby is teething on a toy | The baby is not teething on a toy | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The baby is teething on a toy | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The baby is not teething on a toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, hence the suspect's fingerprints were not 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 sun is setting slowly in the sky then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, so it can be concluded that a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | modus ponen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, so it can be concluded that a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and john davis did not have a history of substance abuse, which implies that the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery. | If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then john davis had a history of substance abuse | John davis did not have a history of substance abuse | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | modus tollen | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and john davis did not have a history of substance abuse, which implies that the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the cat is eating food, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, hence the cat is eating food. | If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the cat is eating food | Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | The cat is eating food | modus ponen | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | The cat is eating food | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | The cat is not eating food | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the cat is eating food, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, hence the cat is 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|>
|
The movie is a sports film, because if laura's jewelry box was emptied then the movie is a sports film and laura's jewelry box was emptied. | If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the movie is a sports film | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | The movie is a sports film | modus ponen | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | The movie is a sports film | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | The movie is not a sports 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 sports film, because if laura's jewelry box was emptied then the movie is a sports film and laura's jewelry box was emptied.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, because if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck and john davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck. | If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck | John davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, because if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck and john davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not barking at the squirrel, as if the dog is barking at the squirrel then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk. | If the dog is barking at the squirrel then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the squirrel | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is not barking at the squirrel, as if the dog is barking at the squirrel then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, thus the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools. | If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | modus ponen | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, thus the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, hence laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john. | If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | modus ponen | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, hence laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, hence a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house. | If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | modus ponen | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | 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 suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, 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 sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then water is h2o, and water is not h2o, so sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy. | If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then water is h2o | Water is not h2o | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | modus tollen | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Water is H2O | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Water is not H2O | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then water is h2o, and water is not h2o, so sarah had not 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 the cat is sleeping soundly then the weather is mild and pleasant, and the cat is sleeping soundly, thus the weather is mild and pleasant. | If the cat is sleeping soundly then the weather is mild and pleasant | The cat is sleeping soundly | The weather is mild and pleasant | modus ponen | The cat is sleeping soundly | The weather is mild and pleasant | The cat is not sleeping soundly | The weather is not mild and pleasant | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping soundly then the weather is mild and pleasant, and the cat is sleeping soundly, thus the weather is mild and pleasant.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, hence a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | modus ponen | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, hence a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, as if a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | modus ponen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | 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: ```A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, as if a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then the baby is playing with blocks, and the baby is not playing with blocks, which establishes that laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident. | If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then the baby is playing with blocks | The baby is not playing with blocks | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | modus tollen | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | The baby is playing with blocks | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | The baby is not playing with blocks | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then the baby is playing with blocks, and the baby is not playing with blocks, which establishes that laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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, which establishes that no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard. | If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | modus tollen | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | 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 a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard 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, which establishes that no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, therefore a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement. | If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | modus ponen | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | 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 alarm system was disabled during the robbery then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, therefore a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, since if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder and no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder. | If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | modus tollen | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | 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: ```No threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, since if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder and no 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|>
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, since if the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the book is a collection of short stories and the book is not a collection of short stories. | If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the book is a collection of short stories | The book is not a collection of short stories | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The book is a collection of short stories | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The book is not a collection of short stories | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, since if the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the book is a collection of short stories and the book is not a collection of short stories.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, as if a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster. | If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | modus ponen | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, as if a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker 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 store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker. | If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker 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 store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | modus tollen | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | 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 store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker 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 store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the book is a mystery novel, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, so it can be concluded that the book is a mystery novel. | If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the book is a mystery novel | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The book is a mystery novel | modus ponen | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The book is a mystery novel | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | The book is not a mystery novel | 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 phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the book is a mystery novel, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, so it can be concluded that the book is a mystery novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, which shows that detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park. | If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | modus ponen | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | 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 a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, which shows that detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's name is laura martinez then the sun is shining, and the victim's name is laura martinez, so it can be concluded that the sun is shining. | If the victim's name is laura martinez then the sun is shining | The victim's name is laura martinez | The sun is shining | modus ponen | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | The sun is shining | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | The sun is not shining | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's name is laura martinez then the sun is shining, and the victim's name is laura martinez, so it can be concluded that the sun is shining.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, because if emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the cat is sleeping soundly and the cat is not sleeping soundly. | If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the cat is sleeping soundly | The cat is not sleeping soundly | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | modus tollen | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The cat is sleeping soundly | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The cat is not sleeping soundly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, because if emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the cat is sleeping soundly and the cat is not sleeping soundly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then john davis had a history of financial problems, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, so it can be concluded that john davis had a history of financial problems. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then john davis had a history of financial problems | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | John Davis had a history of financial problems | modus ponen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | John Davis had a history of financial problems | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then john davis had a history of financial problems, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, so it can be concluded that 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|>
|
Laura's dog was found locked in a closet, as if the dog is barking at the mail truck then laura's dog was found locked in a closet and the dog is barking at the mail truck. | If the dog is barking at the mail truck then laura's dog was found locked in a closet | The dog is barking at the mail truck | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the mail truck | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's dog was found locked in a closet, as if the dog is barking at the mail truck then laura's dog was found locked in a closet and the dog is barking at the mail truck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the book is a collection of short stories, and the book is not a collection of short stories, which implies that officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store. | If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the book is a collection of short stories | The book is not a collection of short stories | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | modus tollen | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The book is a collection of short stories | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The book is not a collection of short stories | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the book is a collection of short stories, and the book is not a collection of short stories, which implies that officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, hence the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest. | If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | modus ponen | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | 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 the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, hence the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.```<|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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, which shows that the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive. | If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | modus tollen | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, which shows that the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the movie is a family film, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, thus the movie is a family film. | If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the movie is a family film | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The movie is a family film | modus ponen | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The movie is a family film | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The movie is not a family film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the movie is a family film, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, thus the movie is a family film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a musical film then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, and the movie is a musical film, thus the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information. | If the movie is a musical film then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The movie is a musical film | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | modus ponen | The movie is a musical film | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The movie is not a musical film | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a musical film then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, and the movie is a musical film, thus the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that laura had a history of changing her locks frequently. | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | modus ponen | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | 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 had a history of changing her locks frequently, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that laura had a history of changing her locks frequently.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and the sun is not shining brightly in the sky, hence the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery. | If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then the sun is shining brightly in the sky | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | modus tollen | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and the sun is not shining brightly in the sky, hence the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a science fiction film then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and the movie is a science fiction film, therefore the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker. | If the movie is a science fiction film then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The movie is a science fiction film | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | modus ponen | The movie is a science fiction film | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The movie is not a science fiction film | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a science fiction film then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and the movie is a science fiction film, therefore the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, so it can be concluded that the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon. | If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | John davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | modus ponen | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, so it can be concluded that the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, because if emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky. | If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | modus ponen | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | 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 hearing a loud argument, because if emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, since if detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard. | If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | modus ponen | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, since if detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, which establishes that laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats. | If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | A neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | modus ponen | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, which establishes that laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, because if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement. | If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | modus ponen | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, because if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, so it can be concluded that the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information. | If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | modus ponen | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, so it can be concluded that the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, because if a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene and officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene. | If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | Officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | modus tollen | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, because if a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene and officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.```<|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 mail was tampered with then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and laura's mail was tampered with, so it can be concluded that john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs. | If laura's mail was tampered with then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | Laura's mail was tampered with | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | modus ponen | Laura's mail was tampered with | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | Laura's mail was not tampered with | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's mail was tampered with then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and laura's mail was tampered with, so it can be concluded that john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is laughing at the toy then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, so the baby is not laughing at the toy. | If the baby is laughing at the toy then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | The baby is not laughing at the toy | modus tollen | The baby is laughing at the toy | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | The baby is not laughing at the toy | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is laughing at the toy then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, so the baby is not laughing at the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, since if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the book is a memoir and the book is not a memoir. | If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the book is a memoir | The book is not a memoir | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | modus tollen | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The book is a memoir | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The book is not a memoir | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, since if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the book is a memoir and the book is not a memoir.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, as if a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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. | If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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 | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | modus tollen | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | 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: ```A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, as if a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If it is raining today then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, which shows that it is not raining today. | If it is raining today then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | It is not raining today | modus tollen | It is raining today | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | It is not raining today | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If it is raining today then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, which shows that 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 it is raining today then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and it is raining today, which shows that a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office. | If it is raining today then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | It is raining today | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | modus ponen | It is raining today | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | It is not raining today | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If it is raining today then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and it is raining today, which shows that a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, hence john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents. | If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | modus ponen | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | 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: ```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, hence john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, hence a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard. | If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | modus tollen | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, hence a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a romance novel then the dog is barking loudly, and the book is a romance novel, thus the dog is barking loudly. | If the book is a romance novel then the dog is barking loudly | The book is a romance novel | The dog is barking loudly | modus ponen | The book is a romance novel | The dog is barking loudly | The book is not a romance novel | The dog is not barking loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a romance novel then the dog is barking loudly, and the book is a romance novel, thus the dog is barking loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, hence a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house. | If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | modus ponen | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, hence a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The weather is not cold and rainy, as if the weather is cold and rainy then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker and the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker. | If the weather is cold and rainy then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | The weather is not cold and rainy | modus tollen | The weather is cold and rainy | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The weather is not cold and rainy | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The weather is not cold and rainy, as if the weather is cold and rainy then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker and the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, as if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim and the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | modus tollen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | 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: ```No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, as if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim and the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, hence 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 the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | 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 | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into 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 a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, hence 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 book is written by a famous author then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and the book is written by a famous author, so laura's prescription medications were stolen. | If the book is written by a famous author then laura's prescription medications were stolen | The book is written by a famous author | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | modus ponen | The book is written by a famous author | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | The book is not written by a famous author | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and the book is written by a famous author, so laura's prescription medications were stolen.```<|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 emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, therefore emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder. | If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder | A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | modus ponen | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before 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 threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, therefore emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, which implies that no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | modus tollen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | 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 a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, which implies that no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then it is raining today, and it is not raining today, which implies that the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect. | If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then it is raining today | It is not raining today | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | It is raining today | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | It is not raining today | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then it is raining today, and it is not raining today, which implies that the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a history of psychiatric issues, as if the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery. | If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | modus ponen | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a history of psychiatric issues, as if the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues and 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|>
|
If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, thus a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement. | If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | modus ponen | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, thus a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which shows that laura's phone records do not show calls to 911. | If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | modus tollen | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which shows that laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, as if the book is written by a famous author then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home and the book is written by a famous author. | If the book is written by a famous author then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home | The book is written by a famous author | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | modus ponen | The book is written by a famous author | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | The book is not written by a famous author | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, as if the book is written by a famous author then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home and the book is written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, since if the football is round then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment and the football is round. | If the football is round then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The football is round | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | modus ponen | The football is round | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The football is not round | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, since if the football is round then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment and the football is round.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist 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, so it can be concluded that witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist. | If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist 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 | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | modus tollen | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | 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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist 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, so it can be concluded that witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's garage door was left open, since if the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then laura's garage door was left open and the cat is purring contentedly on my lap. | If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then laura's garage door was left open | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | Laura's garage door was left open | modus ponen | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | Laura's garage door was left open | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | 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: ```Laura's garage door was left open, since if the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then laura's garage door was left open and the cat is purring contentedly on my lap.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, hence the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation. | If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | modus ponen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, hence the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, so laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident. | If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | modus tollen | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | 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 car was vandalized the week before the incident then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, so laura's car was not 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 john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, which shows that emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder. | If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | John davis had a cache of illegal firearms | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | modus ponen | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, which shows that emily's bank records 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, thus 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 a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | 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 | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, thus 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|>
|
If the movie is a horror film then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the movie is a horror film, so the dog is barking at the neighbors. | If the movie is a horror film then the dog is barking at the neighbors | The movie is a horror film | The dog is barking at the neighbors | modus ponen | The movie is a horror film | The dog is barking at the neighbors | The movie is not a horror film | 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 movie is a horror film then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the movie is a horror film, so the dog is barking at the neighbors.```<|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 loudly 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, therefore the dog is not barking loudly. | If the dog is barking loudly 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 dog is not barking loudly | modus tollen | The dog is barking loudly | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The dog is not barking loudly | 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 dog is barking loudly 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, therefore the dog is not barking loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, as if richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery. | If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | 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: ```The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, as if richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, as if laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail and laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions. | If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | modus ponen | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | 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 received threatening letters in the mail, as if laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail and laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, so the movie is a comedy-drama. | If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the movie is a comedy-drama | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The movie is a comedy-drama | modus ponen | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The movie is a comedy-drama | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | The movie is not a comedy-drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, so the movie is a comedy-drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, which establishes that the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | modus ponen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, which establishes that the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the squirrel then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, and the dog is barking at the squirrel, thus surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery. | If the dog is barking at the squirrel then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The dog is barking at the squirrel | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the squirrel | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days 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 the dog is barking at the squirrel then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, and the dog is barking at the squirrel, thus surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the dog next door then the weather is cold and rainy, and the weather is not cold and rainy, hence the dog is not barking at the dog next door. | If the dog is barking at the dog next door then the weather is cold and rainy | The weather is not cold and rainy | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the dog next door | The weather is cold and rainy | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | The weather is not cold and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the dog next door then the weather is cold and rainy, and the weather is not cold and rainy, hence the dog is not barking at the dog next door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then laura's social media accounts were hacked, and the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, so laura's social media accounts were hacked. | If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then laura's social media accounts were hacked | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | modus ponen | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then laura's social media accounts were hacked, and the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, so laura's social media accounts were hacked.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No broken window was found in laura's bedroom, since if a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home. | If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | modus tollen | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No broken window was found in laura's bedroom, since if a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, so the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest. | If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | modus tollen | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, so the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest.```<|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.