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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, which establishes that the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage. | If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | modus tollen | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, which establishes that the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, thus no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id. | If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | modus tollen | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, thus no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, which shows that john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | modus ponen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, which shows that john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is not shining, since if the sun is shining then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions. | If the sun is shining then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | The sun is not shining | modus tollen | The sun is shining | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The sun is not shining | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not shining, since if the sun is shining then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, which establishes that the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased. | If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | modus ponen | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, which establishes that the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's house was booby-trapped then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and laura's house was booby-trapped, so it can be concluded that laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal. | If laura's house was booby-trapped then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Laura's house was booby-trapped | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | modus ponen | Laura's house was booby-trapped | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's house was booby-trapped then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and laura's house was booby-trapped, so it can be concluded that laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, because if sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | modus ponen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, because if sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the baby is playing with a toy car, and the baby is not playing with a toy car, which implies that a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home. | If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the baby is playing with a toy car | The baby is not playing with a toy car | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | modus tollen | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | The baby is playing with a toy car | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | The baby is not playing with a toy car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then the baby is playing with a toy car, and the baby is not playing with a toy car, which implies that a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, so the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data. | If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | modus tollen | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, so 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 laura had recently changed her social media passwords then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, so a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car. | If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | modus ponen | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, so a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then the cat is purring, and the cat is not purring, which shows that john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs. | If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then the cat is purring | The cat is not purring | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | modus tollen | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | The cat is purring | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | The cat is not purring | 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 collection of disturbing photographs then the cat is purring, and the cat is not purring, which shows that john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, which establishes that footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene. | If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | modus ponen | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, which establishes that footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the baby is crying, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the baby is crying. | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the baby is crying | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The baby is crying | modus ponen | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The baby is crying | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | The baby is not crying | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the baby is crying, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the baby is crying.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then the cat is purring loudly, and the cat is not purring loudly, therefore laura's laptop was not found smashed. | If laura's laptop was found smashed then the cat is purring loudly | The cat is not purring loudly | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | modus tollen | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The cat is purring loudly | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | The cat is not purring loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then the cat is purring loudly, and the cat is not purring loudly, therefore laura's laptop was not found smashed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder, as if the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the sun is setting slowly in the sky and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky. | If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder | modus tollen | The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder, as if the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the sun is setting slowly in the sky and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the cat is not sleeping on the couch, so the victim's name is not sarah mitchell. | If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then the cat is sleeping on the couch | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | modus tollen | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | The cat is sleeping on the couch | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the cat is not sleeping on the couch, so the victim's name is not sarah mitchell.```<|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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, so it can be concluded that no coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe. | If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | modus tollen | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, so it can be concluded that no coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, as if richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account. | If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | modus ponen | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, as if richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account.```<|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 happy then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, so it can be concluded that the dog is not happy. | If the dog is happy then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | The dog is not happy | modus tollen | The dog is happy | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The dog is not happy | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is happy then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, so it can be concluded that the dog is not happy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, because if the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape. | If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | 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: ```The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, because if the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, as if john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then laura had installed a home security system and laura had not installed a home security system. | If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then laura had installed a home security system | Laura had not installed a home security system | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | modus tollen | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | Laura had installed a home security system | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | Laura had not installed a home security system | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, as if john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then laura had installed a home security system and laura had not installed a home security system.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, so the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime. | If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | modus ponen | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, so the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the victim's name is not sarah mitchell, thus emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky. | If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then the victim's name is sarah mitchell | The victim's name is not sarah mitchell | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | modus tollen | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the victim's name is not sarah mitchell, thus emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, thus the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime. | If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | modus ponen | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, thus the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, therefore a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession. | If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | modus tollen | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, therefore a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a sedan then the book is a mystery novel, and the book is not a mystery novel, hence the car is not a sedan. | If the car is a sedan then the book is a mystery novel | The book is not a mystery novel | The car is not a sedan | modus tollen | The car is a sedan | The book is a mystery novel | The car is not a sedan | 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 car is a sedan then the book is a mystery novel, and the book is not a mystery novel, hence the car is not a sedan.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, therefore the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder. | If laura's social media accounts were hacked then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | modus ponen | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just 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 laura's social media accounts were hacked then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, therefore the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just 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 richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, so it can be concluded that laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident. | If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | modus ponen | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, so it can be concluded that laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems, which implies that the weather is not mild and pleasant. | If the weather is mild and pleasant then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The weather is not mild and pleasant | modus tollen | The weather is mild and pleasant | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The weather is not mild and pleasant | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is mild and pleasant then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems, which implies that the weather is not mild and pleasant.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the phone is ringing then the car is parked on the street, and the car is not parked on the street, which establishes that the phone is not ringing. | If the phone is ringing then the car is parked on the street | The car is not parked on the street | The phone is not ringing | modus tollen | The phone is ringing | The car is parked on the street | The phone is not ringing | The car is not parked on the street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the phone is ringing then the car is parked on the street, and the car is not parked on the street, which establishes that the phone is not ringing.```<|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 gas leak was detected in the basement then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, therefore a gas leak was not detected in the basement. | If a gas leak was detected in the basement then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | No cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | modus tollen | A gas leak was detected in the basement | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a gas leak was detected in the basement then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, therefore a gas leak was not detected in the basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which establishes that no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep. | If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | modus tollen | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which establishes that no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, which establishes that the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim. | If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | John davis had a history of violating restraining orders | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, which establishes that the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, since if water is h2o then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack and water is h2o. | If water is h2o then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | Water is h2o | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | modus ponen | Water is H2O | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | Water is not H2O | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, since if water is h2o then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack and water is h2o.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, which shows that the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it. | If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | modus tollen | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after 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 murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, which shows that the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is drinking from a bottle then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the dog is not barking at the neighbors, which shows that the baby is not drinking from a bottle. | If the baby is drinking from a bottle then the dog is barking at the neighbors | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | modus tollen | The baby is drinking from a bottle | The dog is barking at the neighbors | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | 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 baby is drinking from a bottle then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the dog is not barking at the neighbors, which shows that the baby is not drinking from a bottle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then the baby is laughing at the toy, and the weather is mild and pleasant, so the baby is laughing at the toy. | If the weather is mild and pleasant then the baby is laughing at the toy | The weather is mild and pleasant | The baby is laughing at the toy | modus ponen | The weather is mild and pleasant | The baby is laughing at the toy | The weather is not mild and pleasant | The baby is not laughing at the 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 weather is mild and pleasant then the baby is laughing at the toy, and the weather is mild and pleasant, so the baby is 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|>
|
Sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, because if sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery and surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | modus tollen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, because if sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery and surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, so a bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door. | If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | modus tollen | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, so a bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, which establishes that a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene. | If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | modus ponen | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, which establishes that 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 the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, so laura's medical records were accessed without authorization. | If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | modus ponen | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, so laura's medical records were accessed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then laura's pet cat is missing, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, hence laura's pet cat is missing. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then laura's pet cat is missing | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | Laura's pet cat is missing | modus ponen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | Laura's pet cat is missing | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | Laura's pet cat is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then laura's pet cat is missing, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, hence laura's pet cat is missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, because if john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs. | If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house | John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | modus ponen | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | 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: ```A neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, because if john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house, which shows that john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms. | If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house | A neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | modus tollen | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | 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 john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house, which shows that john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and laura's jewelry box was not emptied, hence a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard. | If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then laura's jewelry box was emptied | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | modus tollen | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and laura's jewelry box was not emptied, 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 a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which implies that a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar. | If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar | modus tollen | A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which implies that a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the car is moving, and a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, hence the car is moving. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the car is moving | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The car is moving | modus ponen | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The car is moving | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The car is not moving | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the car is moving, and a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, hence the car is moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, as if a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry 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 witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | modus ponen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, as if a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry 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 emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, which shows that emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask. | If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | modus tollen | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, which shows that emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, since if the murder weapon was a baseball bat then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder and the murder weapon was a baseball bat. | If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | modus ponen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt 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: ```A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, since if the murder weapon was a baseball bat then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder and the murder weapon was a baseball bat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, so it can be concluded that sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet | Officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | modus tollen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, so it can be concluded that 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 emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the book is on the bestseller list, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, thus the book is on the bestseller list. | If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the book is on the bestseller list | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The book is on the bestseller list | modus ponen | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The book is on the bestseller list | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The book is not on the bestseller list | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the book is on the bestseller list, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, thus the book is on the bestseller list.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, therefore a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone. | If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, therefore a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not exciting, since if the movie is exciting then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky. | If the movie is exciting then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | The movie is not exciting | modus tollen | The movie is exciting | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | The movie is not exciting | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not exciting, since if the movie is exciting then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky.```<|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 baby is crawling towards the door, and the book is a romance novel, which implies that the baby is crawling towards the door. | If the book is a romance novel then the baby is crawling towards the door | The book is a romance novel | The baby is crawling towards the door | modus ponen | The book is a romance novel | The baby is crawling towards the door | The book is not a romance novel | The baby is not crawling towards the door | 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 baby is crawling towards the door, and the book is a romance novel, which implies that the baby is crawling towards the door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, as if laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the baby is drinking from a bottle and the baby is not drinking from a bottle. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the baby is drinking from a bottle | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | modus tollen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | The baby is drinking from a bottle | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, as if laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the baby is drinking from a bottle and the baby is not drinking from a bottle.```<|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 mailman, as if the dog is barking at the mailman then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe and no coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | No coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | The dog is not barking at the mailman | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mailman | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | The dog is not barking at the mailman | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | 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 mailman, as if the dog is barking at the mailman then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe and no coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.```<|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, because if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary and the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary. | If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | modus tollen | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | 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, because if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary and the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the baby is playing with blocks, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, so it can be concluded that the baby is playing with blocks. | If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the baby is playing with blocks | Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The baby is playing with blocks | modus ponen | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The baby is playing with blocks | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | 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 detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the baby is playing with blocks, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, so it can be concluded that the baby is playing with blocks.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, so it can be concluded that 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 a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | 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 | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, so it can be concluded that 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|>
|
Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, because if forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office and no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | modus tollen | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, because if forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office and no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the cat is purring, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, therefore the cat is purring. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the cat is purring | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The cat is purring | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The cat is purring | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The cat is not purring | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the cat is purring, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, therefore the cat is purring.```<|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 the sun is shining through the window, and the baby is laughing at the toy, which establishes that the sun is shining through the window. | If the baby is laughing at the toy then the sun is shining through the window | The baby is laughing at the toy | The sun is shining through the window | modus ponen | The baby is laughing at the toy | The sun is shining through the window | The baby is not laughing at the toy | The sun is not shining through the window | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is laughing at the toy then the sun is shining through the window, and the baby is laughing at the toy, which establishes that the sun is shining through the window.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, which implies that the sun is not setting slowly. | If the sun is setting slowly then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | The sun is not setting slowly | modus tollen | The sun is setting slowly | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The sun is not setting slowly | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, which implies that 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|>
|
If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the car is a hybrid, and the car is not a hybrid, which shows that the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. | If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the car is a hybrid | The car is not a hybrid | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | modus tollen | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The car is a hybrid | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The car is not a hybrid | 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 dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the car is a hybrid, and the car is not a hybrid, which shows that the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, because if laura had recently changed her social media passwords then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing and laura had recently changed her social media passwords. | If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | modus ponen | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | 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: ```Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, because if laura had recently changed her social media passwords then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing and laura had recently changed her social media passwords.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and the sun is shining brightly, so it can be concluded that laura's prescription medications were stolen. | If the sun is shining brightly then laura's prescription medications were stolen | The sun is shining brightly | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | modus ponen | The sun is shining brightly | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | The sun is not shining brightly | 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 sun is shining brightly then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and the sun is shining brightly, so it can be concluded that 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 the book is a memoir then the cat is sleeping soundly, and the book is a memoir, so it can be concluded that the cat is sleeping soundly. | If the book is a memoir then the cat is sleeping soundly | The book is a memoir | The cat is sleeping soundly | modus ponen | The book is a memoir | The cat is sleeping soundly | The book is not a memoir | The cat is not sleeping soundly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a memoir then the cat is sleeping soundly, and the book is a memoir, so it can be concluded that the cat is 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|>
|
The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, because if a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | modus ponen | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, because if a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, as if surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery. | If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before 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: ```A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, as if surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement and 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 baby is crawling towards the toy then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and the baby is crawling towards the toy, therefore john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit. | If the baby is crawling towards the toy then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The baby is crawling towards the toy | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the toy | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the toy then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and the baby is crawling towards the toy, therefore john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, so it can be concluded that the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | modus ponen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, so it can be concluded that the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a romance novel then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, and no threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, which shows that the book is not a romance novel. | If the book is a romance novel then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace | No threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace | The book is not a romance novel | modus tollen | The book is a romance novel | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | The book is not a romance novel | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a romance novel then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, and no threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, which shows that the book is not a romance novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the neighbors then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking at the neighbors. | If the dog is barking at the neighbors then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the neighbors | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the neighbors then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, so it can be concluded that the dog is not 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|>
|
Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, because if laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then laura's car was found with a slashed tire and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire. | If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | modus tollen | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, because if laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then laura's car was found with a slashed tire and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not purring loudly, as if the cat is purring loudly then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene. | If the cat is purring loudly then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | The cat is not purring loudly | modus tollen | The cat is purring loudly | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The cat is not purring loudly | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is not purring loudly, as if the cat is purring loudly then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, which shows that laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop. | If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | modus ponen | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, which shows that laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not purring, because if the cat is purring then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing. | If the cat is purring then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The cat is not purring | modus tollen | The cat is purring | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The cat is not purring | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is not purring, because if the cat is purring then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the dog is barking loudly, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, thus the dog is barking loudly. | If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the dog is barking loudly | A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo | The dog is barking loudly | modus ponen | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | The dog is barking loudly | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | 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 a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the dog is barking loudly, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, 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 a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the movie is a comedy, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, so the movie is a comedy. | If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the movie is a comedy | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The movie is a comedy | modus ponen | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The movie is a comedy | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The movie is not a comedy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the movie is a comedy, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, so the movie is a comedy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a sedan then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and the car is a sedan, therefore a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home. | If the car is a sedan then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | The car is a sedan | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | modus ponen | The car is a sedan | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | The car is not a sedan | 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 car is a sedan then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and the car is a sedan, therefore a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, so sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house. | If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | modus ponen | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, so sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not interesting, as if the book is interesting then the car is moving and the car is not moving. | If the book is interesting then the car is moving | The car is not moving | The book is not interesting | modus tollen | The book is interesting | The car is moving | The book is not interesting | The car is not moving | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not interesting, as if the book is interesting then the car is moving and the car is not moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, since if detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom. | If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | modus ponen | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, since if detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.```<|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 a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, which shows that the dog is not barking loudly. | If the dog is barking loudly then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | The dog is not barking loudly | modus tollen | The dog is barking loudly | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The dog is not barking loudly | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking loudly then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, which shows that the dog is not barking loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and no broken window was found in laura's bedroom, so the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it. | If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom | No broken window was found in laura's bedroom | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | modus tollen | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and no broken window was found in laura's bedroom, so the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, so the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | modus ponen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, so the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the cat then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, so the baby is not crawling towards the cat. | If the baby is crawling towards the cat then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | Detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the cat | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the cat then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, so the baby is not crawling towards the cat.```<|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 diary contains mentions of threats from john then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, so it can be concluded that john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents. | If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | modus ponen | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | 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 laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, so it can be concluded that 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 surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, thus surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house. | If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer brown discovered a hidden basement | Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, thus surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah'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|>
|
John davis was not found with a bag of cash, as if john davis was found with a bag of cash then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession and a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession. | If john davis was found with a bag of cash then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | A gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | modus tollen | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis was not found with a bag of cash, as if john davis was found with a bag of cash then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession and a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the car is parked on the street, and the car is not parked on the street, so it can be concluded that no threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace. | If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the car is parked on the street | The car is not parked on the street | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | modus tollen | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | The car is parked on the street | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | The car is not parked on the street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the car is parked on the street, and the car is not parked on the street, so it can be concluded that no threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, which implies that the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity. | If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, which implies that the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, therefore a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home. | If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | modus tollen | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, therefore 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 cat is sleeping soundly then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and john davis did not have a history of substance abuse, so the cat is not sleeping soundly. | If the cat is sleeping soundly then john davis had a history of substance abuse | John davis did not have a history of substance abuse | The cat is not sleeping soundly | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping soundly | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | The cat is not sleeping soundly | 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 cat is sleeping soundly then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and john davis did not have a history of substance abuse, so 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 a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, which implies that no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house. | If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, which implies that no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace, so it can be concluded that no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene. | If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | modus tollen | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace, so it can be concluded that no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which implies that the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim. | If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | modus ponen | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which implies that the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, therefore laura had a secret storage room in her house. | If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then laura had a secret storage room in her house | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | modus ponen | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, therefore laura had a secret storage room in her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, and no threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, so it can be concluded that detective hayes did not discover 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 threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace | No threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | modus tollen | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, and no threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, so it can be concluded that detective hayes did not discover 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|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.