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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, because if the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then laura's dog was found locked in a closet and laura's dog was not found locked in a closet. | If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then laura's dog was found locked in a closet | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | modus tollen | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, because if the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then laura's dog was found locked in a closet and laura's dog was not found locked in a closet.```<|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 heard screams coming from laura's house, as if a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow. | If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house | A note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | modus ponen | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness heard screams coming from laura's house, as if a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, and the suspect's name is john davis, so it can be concluded that the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim. | If the suspect's name is john davis then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The suspect's name is john davis | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | modus ponen | The suspect's name is John Davis | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The suspect's name is not John Davis | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's name is john davis then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, and the suspect's name is john davis, so it can be concluded that the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, which implies that sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | modus ponen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, which implies that 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, therefore surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | modus tollen | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, therefore surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then the movie is exciting, and the movie is not exciting, so it can be concluded that laura's laptop was not found smashed. | If laura's laptop was found smashed then the movie is exciting | The movie is not exciting | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | modus tollen | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The movie is exciting | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | The movie is not exciting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then the movie is exciting, and the movie is not exciting, so it can be concluded that laura's laptop was not found smashed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the computer is on then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and the computer is on, which implies that emily had recently taken a self-defense course. | If the computer is on then emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The computer is on | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | modus ponen | The computer is on | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The computer is not on | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the computer is on then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and the computer is on, which implies that emily had recently taken a self-defense course.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, hence sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | modus ponen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, hence sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was found with a bag of cash then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, therefore john davis was not found with a bag of cash. | If john davis was found with a bag of cash then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | modus tollen | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was found with a bag of cash then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, therefore john davis was not found with a bag of cash.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, because if emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement and detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | Detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | modus tollen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, because if emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement and detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with toys then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, and the baby is playing with toys, so it can be concluded that emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery. | If the baby is playing with toys then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The baby is playing with toys | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | modus ponen | The baby is playing with toys | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The baby is not playing with toys | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with toys then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, and the baby is playing with toys, so it can be concluded that emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a secret storage unit then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and john davis had a secret storage unit, therefore john davis had recently purchased a firearm. | If john davis had a secret storage unit then john davis had recently purchased a firearm | John davis had a secret storage unit | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | modus ponen | John Davis had a secret storage unit | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a secret storage unit then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and john davis had a secret storage unit, therefore john davis had recently purchased a firearm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's garage door was not left open, because if laura's garage door was left open then the baby is crying and the baby is not crying. | If laura's garage door was left open then the baby is crying | The baby is not crying | Laura's garage door was not left open | modus tollen | Laura's garage door was left open | The baby is crying | Laura's garage door was not left open | 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: ```Laura's garage door was not left open, because if laura's garage door was left open then the baby is crying and the baby is not crying.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of financial problems then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and john davis had a history of financial problems, thus a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home. | If john davis had a history of financial problems then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home | John davis had a history of financial problems | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of financial problems | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus'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 john davis had a history of financial problems then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and john davis had a history of financial problems, thus a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not a mystery novel, because if the book is a mystery novel then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents and john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents. | If the book is a mystery novel then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | John davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents | The book is not a mystery novel | modus tollen | The book is a mystery novel | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | The book is not a mystery novel | 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: ```The book is not a mystery novel, because if the book is a mystery novel then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents and john davis was not 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 laura's prescription medications were stolen then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and laura's prescription medications were stolen, so the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon. | If laura's prescription medications were stolen then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | modus ponen | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's prescription medications were stolen then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and laura's prescription medications were stolen, so the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, which shows that laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal. | If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | modus ponen | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | 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 a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, which shows that laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, so officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store. | If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | modus ponen | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, so officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then the movie is exciting, and a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, thus the movie is exciting. | If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then the movie is exciting | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The movie is exciting | modus ponen | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The movie is exciting | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | The movie is not exciting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then the movie is exciting, and a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, thus the movie is exciting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a sedan then the cat is purring loudly, and the cat is not purring loudly, so it can be concluded that the car is not a sedan. | If the car is a sedan then the cat is purring loudly | The cat is not purring loudly | The car is not a sedan | modus tollen | The car is a sedan | The cat is purring loudly | The car is not a sedan | 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 the car is a sedan then the cat is purring loudly, and the cat is not purring loudly, so it can be concluded that the car is not a sedan.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, which shows that the baby is not crawling. | If the baby is crawling then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The baby is not crawling | modus tollen | The baby is crawling | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The baby is not crawling | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, which shows that the baby is not crawling.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then john davis had a history of identity theft, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, hence john davis had a history of identity theft. | If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then john davis had a history of identity theft | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | John Davis had a history of identity theft | modus ponen | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | John Davis had a history of identity theft | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then john davis had a history of identity theft, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, hence john davis had a history of identity theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, which establishes that a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction. | If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | modus ponen | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, which establishes that a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, which shows that the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses. | If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | modus tollen | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, which shows that the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, and the dog is barking at the mailman, hence the suspect had a history of violence against the victim. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The dog is barking at the mailman | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the mailman | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The dog is not barking at the mailman | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, and the dog is barking at the mailman, hence the suspect had a history of violence against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then laura's house was booby-trapped, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, which establishes that laura's house was booby-trapped. | If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then laura's house was booby-trapped | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | Laura's house was booby-trapped | modus ponen | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | Laura's house was booby-trapped | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then laura's house was booby-trapped, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, which establishes that laura's house was booby-trapped.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, which establishes that the sun is not setting. | If the sun is setting then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The sun is not setting | modus tollen | The sun is setting | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The sun is not setting | 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 the sun is setting then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, which establishes that the sun is not setting.```<|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 recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, thus no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office. | If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | modus tollen | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, thus no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, hence a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | 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 a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, hence a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the computer is on then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and the computer is on, which implies that the murder weapon was a baseball bat. | If the computer is on then the murder weapon was a baseball bat | The computer is on | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | modus ponen | The computer is on | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | The computer is not on | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the computer is on then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and the computer is on, which implies that the murder weapon was a baseball bat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is not shining through the window, since if the sun is shining through the window then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect. | If the sun is shining through the window then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The sun is not shining through the window | modus tollen | The sun is shining through the window | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The sun is not shining through the window | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not shining through the window, since if the sun is shining through the window then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck. | If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | modus tollen | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A shattered vase was not found in the hallway, as if a shattered vase was found in the hallway then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing. | If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | Sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | modus tollen | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | 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: ```A shattered vase was not found in the hallway, as if a shattered vase was found in the hallway then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and the dog is barking at the mailman, hence john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The dog is barking at the mailman | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the mailman | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The dog is not barking at the mailman | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and the dog is barking at the mailman, hence john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cold and rainy then the baby is playing with blocks, and the weather is cold and rainy, which implies that the baby is playing with blocks. | If the weather is cold and rainy then the baby is playing with blocks | The weather is cold and rainy | The baby is playing with blocks | modus ponen | The weather is cold and rainy | The baby is playing with blocks | The weather is not cold and rainy | The baby is not playing with blocks | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and rainy then the baby is playing with blocks, and the weather is cold and rainy, which implies 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 sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, so the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim. | If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | modus ponen | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to 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 sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, so the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the television then the car is moving, and the car is not moving, so the dog is not barking at the television. | If the dog is barking at the television then the car is moving | The car is not moving | The dog is not barking at the television | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the television | The car is moving | The dog is not barking at the television | 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 the dog is barking at the television then the car is moving, and the car is not moving, so the dog is not barking at the television.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the book is written by a famous author, hence the victim had a restraining order against the suspect. | If the book is written by a famous author then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The book is written by a famous author | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | modus ponen | The book is written by a famous author | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The book is not written by a famous author | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the book is written by a famous author, hence the victim had a restraining order against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, because if a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder. | If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | modus tollen | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, because if a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, because if the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage. | If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | modus ponen | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | 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: ```Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, because if the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was 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 the dog is barking at the television then the baby is sleeping, and the dog is barking at the television, so the baby is sleeping. | If the dog is barking at the television then the baby is sleeping | The dog is barking at the television | The baby is sleeping | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the television | The baby is sleeping | The dog is not barking at the television | The baby is not sleeping | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the television then the baby is sleeping, and the dog is barking at the television, so the baby is sleeping.```<|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 the movie is exciting, and the movie is not exciting, 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 the movie is exciting | The movie is not exciting | 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 | The movie is exciting | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | The movie is not exciting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then the movie is exciting, and the movie is not exciting, 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|>
|
If laura's mail was tampered with then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, so laura's mail was not tampered with. | If laura's mail was tampered with then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | Laura's mail was not tampered with | modus tollen | Laura's mail was tampered with | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | Laura's mail was not tampered with | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's mail was tampered with then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, so laura's mail was not tampered with.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, since if forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing. | If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | modus ponen | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | 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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack and forensic analysis revealed 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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, so it can be concluded that a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox. | If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox | A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | modus ponen | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, so it can be concluded that a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which establishes that laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john. | If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | modus ponen | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which establishes that laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A shattered vase was not found in the hallway, since if a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed. | If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | modus tollen | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A shattered vase was not found in the hallway, since if a shattered vase was found in the hallway then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed.```<|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 then laura's mail was tampered with, and the baby is crawling, so laura's mail was tampered with. | If the baby is crawling then laura's mail was tampered with | The baby is crawling | Laura's mail was tampered with | modus ponen | The baby is crawling | Laura's mail was tampered with | The baby is not crawling | Laura's mail was not tampered with | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling then laura's mail was tampered with, and the baby is crawling, so laura's mail was tampered with.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's house was booby-trapped then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, therefore laura's house was not booby-trapped. | If laura's house was booby-trapped then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | John davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | modus tollen | Laura's house was booby-trapped | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's house was booby-trapped then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, therefore laura's house was not booby-trapped.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, since if a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment and no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | No stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | modus tollen | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, since if a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment and no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and laura's jewelry box was not emptied, hence john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape. | If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then laura's jewelry box was emptied | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | modus tollen | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | 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 john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and laura's jewelry box was not emptied, hence john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then laura's garage door was left open, and laura's garage door was not left open, which shows that laura had not recently changed her social media passwords. | If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then laura's garage door was left open | Laura's garage door was not left open | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | modus tollen | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Laura's garage door was left open | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | Laura's garage door was not left open | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then laura's garage door was left open, and laura's garage door was not left open, which shows that laura had not 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 john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, so the victim had a restraining order against the suspect. | If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect | John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | modus ponen | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, so the victim had a restraining order against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, because if the cat is sleeping soundly then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public and the cat is sleeping soundly. | If the cat is sleeping soundly then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | The cat is sleeping soundly | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | modus ponen | The cat is sleeping soundly | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | The cat is not sleeping soundly | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | 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 hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, because if the cat is sleeping soundly then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public and 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 car is not parked in the garage, because if the car is parked in the garage then the water is warm and the water is not warm. | If the car is parked in the garage then the water is warm | The water is not warm | The car is not parked in the garage | modus tollen | The car is parked in the garage | The water is warm | The car is not parked in the garage | The water is not warm | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is not parked in the garage, because if the car is parked in the garage then the water is warm and the water is not warm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, because if the sun is setting slowly then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft and the sun is setting slowly. | If the sun is setting slowly then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | The sun is setting slowly | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | modus ponen | The sun is setting slowly | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | The sun is not setting slowly | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, because if the sun is setting slowly then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft and the sun is 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 a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, which shows that a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus ponen | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | 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 a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, which shows that a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The eiffel tower is not in paris, because if the eiffel tower is in paris then the movie is a documentary and the movie is not a documentary. | If the eiffel tower is in paris then the movie is a documentary | The movie is not a documentary | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | modus tollen | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | The movie is a documentary | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | The movie is not a documentary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The eiffel tower is not in paris, because if the eiffel tower is in paris then the movie is a documentary and the movie is not a documentary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, and the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions, hence a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene. | If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | modus tollen | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, and the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions, hence a stolen car was not found abandoned 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 murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, thus sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily. | If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | modus ponen | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | 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 sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, thus sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's name is laura martinez then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and john davis had not recently purchased a firearm, so the victim's name is not laura martinez. | If the victim's name is laura martinez then john davis had recently purchased a firearm | John davis had not recently purchased a firearm | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | modus tollen | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's name is laura martinez then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and john davis had not recently purchased a firearm, so the victim's name is not laura martinez.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the cat is purring contentedly, and the cat is not purring contentedly, so a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned. | If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the cat is purring contentedly | The cat is not purring contentedly | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | modus tollen | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The cat is purring contentedly | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The cat is not purring contentedly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the cat is purring contentedly, and the cat is not purring contentedly, so a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned.```<|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 laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, which establishes that laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door. | If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | modus ponen | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | 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 sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, which establishes that laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, so it can be concluded that the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim. | If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | 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: ```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, so it can be concluded that the suspect did not have 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 neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the book is interesting, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, so the book is interesting. | If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the book is interesting | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | The book is interesting | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | The book is interesting | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | The book is not interesting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the book is interesting, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, so the book is interesting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's garage door was left open then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that laura's garage door was not left open. | If laura's garage door was left open then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | Laura's garage door was not left open | modus tollen | Laura's garage door was left open | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | Laura's garage door was not left open | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's garage door was left open then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that laura's garage door was not left open.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then john davis had a history of financial problems, and john davis did not have a history of financial problems, hence the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then john davis had a history of financial problems | John davis did not have a history of financial problems | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John Davis had a history of financial problems | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then john davis had a history of financial problems, and john davis did not have a history of financial problems, hence the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is not shining through the window, since if the sun is shining through the window then the baby is crawling towards the toy and the baby is not crawling towards the toy. | If the sun is shining through the window then the baby is crawling towards the toy | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | The sun is not shining through the window | modus tollen | The sun is shining through the window | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The sun is not shining through the window | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | 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 through the window, since if the sun is shining through the window then the baby is crawling towards the toy and the baby is not crawling towards the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with blocks then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, and the baby is playing with blocks, which establishes that officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store. | If the baby is playing with blocks then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | The baby is playing with blocks | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | modus ponen | The baby is playing with blocks | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | The baby is not playing with blocks | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with blocks then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, and the baby is playing with blocks, which establishes that officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and officer brown discovered a hidden basement, so it can be concluded that the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment. | If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | Officer brown discovered a hidden basement | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | modus ponen | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and officer brown discovered a hidden basement, so it can be concluded that the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, which shows that the cat is sleeping on the couch. | If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then the cat is sleeping on the couch | A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | The cat is sleeping on the couch | modus ponen | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | The cat is sleeping on the couch | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | 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 a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, which shows that the cat is sleeping on the couch.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the phone is ringing, and the phone is not ringing, which establishes that the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon. | If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the phone is ringing | The phone is not ringing | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The phone is ringing | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The phone is not ringing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the phone is ringing, and the phone is not ringing, which establishes that the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, because if the car is a hybrid then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene and the car is a hybrid. | If the car is a hybrid then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The car is a hybrid | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | modus ponen | The car is a hybrid | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The car is not a hybrid | No witness saw a masked man 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: ```A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, because if the car is a hybrid then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene and the car is a hybrid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, because if detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard. | If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk | Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | modus ponen | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, because if detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, which shows that a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack. | If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | modus ponen | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | 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 john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, which shows that a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.```<|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 a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, hence a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene. | If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | 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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, hence a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, therefore sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder. | If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, therefore sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, thus the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster. | If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | modus tollen | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, thus the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident, which implies that 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 car was vandalized the week before the incident | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | 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 car was vandalized the week before the incident | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | 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 a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident, which implies that 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 baby is crawling then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, and the victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, thus the baby is not crawling. | If the baby is crawling then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The baby is not crawling | modus tollen | The baby is crawling | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The baby is not crawling | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | 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 then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, and the victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, thus the baby is not crawling.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, because if a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone and no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone. | If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | modus tollen | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, because if a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone and no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is not shining, because if the sun is shining 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. | If the sun is shining then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | The sun is not shining | modus tollen | The sun is shining | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | The sun is not shining | 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: ```The sun is not shining, because if the sun is shining 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and the sun is shining brightly in the sky, which establishes that the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted. | If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | modus ponen | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and the sun is shining brightly in the sky, which establishes that the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and laura's prescription medications were not stolen, so 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 laura's prescription medications were stolen | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | 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 | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | 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 surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and laura's prescription medications were not stolen, so 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|>
|
If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, and emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, hence a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake. | If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | modus tollen | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | 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 claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, and emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, hence a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, so the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | modus ponen | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, so the victim's pet dog was found unharmed 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 neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the weather is cold and snowy, and the weather is not cold and snowy, thus a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car. | If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the weather is cold and snowy | The weather is not cold and snowy | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | modus tollen | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The weather is cold and snowy | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The weather is not cold and snowy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the weather is cold and snowy, and the weather is not cold and snowy, thus a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their 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 paris is in france then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, hence paris is not in france. | If paris is in france then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | Paris is not in France | modus tollen | Paris is in France | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | Paris is not in France | 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 paris is in france then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, hence paris is not in france.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim, because if the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder and the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder. | If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | 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: ```The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim, because if the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder and the victim's life insurance policy had not 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|>
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, because if laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john. | If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | modus ponen | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, because if laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, thus the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment. | If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | modus tollen | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, thus the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's name is laura martinez, because if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the victim's name is laura martinez and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby. | If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the victim's name is laura martinez | Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | modus ponen | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's name is laura martinez, because if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the victim's name is laura martinez and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of financial problems then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, and john davis had a history of financial problems, which establishes that the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation. | If john davis had a history of financial problems then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | John davis had a history of financial problems | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of financial problems | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of financial problems then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, and john davis had a history of financial problems, which establishes that the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a documentary then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and the movie is a documentary, hence the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools. | If the movie is a documentary then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The movie is a documentary | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | modus ponen | The movie is a documentary | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The movie is not a documentary | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a documentary then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and the movie is a documentary, hence the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway 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, which establishes that a shattered vase was not found in the hallway. | If a shattered vase was found in the hallway 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 | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | modus tollen | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | 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 shattered vase was found in the hallway 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, which establishes that a shattered vase was not found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, which implies that the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery. | If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, which implies that the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, hence emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers. | If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | modus ponen | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers | 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 emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, hence emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers.```<|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 on the table then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, which implies that the book is not on the table. | If the book is on the table then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | The book is not on the table | modus tollen | The book is on the table | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | The book is not on the table | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the table then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, which implies that the book is not on the table.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, as if a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | modus tollen | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, as if a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage and 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 the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, thus emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, thus emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.