Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street. stringlengths 74 421 | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street stringlengths 36 192 | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 788 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street stringclasses 788 values | modus ponen stringclasses 2 values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1 stringclasses 394 values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street stringclasses 394 values | True bool 1 class | text stringlengths 453 800 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then the book is a memoir, and laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, so the book is a memoir. | If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then the book is a memoir | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | The book is a memoir | modus ponen | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | The book is a memoir | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | The book is not a memoir | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then the book is a memoir, and laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, so the book is a memoir.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the sun is shining through the window, and the sun is not shining through the window, hence no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom. | If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the sun is shining through the window | The sun is not shining through the window | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | modus tollen | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | The sun is shining through the window | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | The sun is not shining through the window | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the sun is shining through the window, and the sun is not shining through the window, hence no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, therefore laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop. | If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | modus ponen | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, therefore laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, since if the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then the cat is purring contentedly and the cat is not purring contentedly. | If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then the cat is purring contentedly | The cat is not purring contentedly | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The cat is purring contentedly | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | 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: ```The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, since if the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then the cat is purring contentedly and the cat is not purring contentedly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cold and snowy then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, therefore the weather is not cold and snowy. | If the weather is cold and snowy then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The weather is not cold and snowy | modus tollen | The weather is cold and snowy | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The weather is not cold and snowy | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day 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 weather is cold and snowy then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, therefore the weather is not cold and snowy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, since if the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals. | If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, since if the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, and a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, hence sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily. | If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | modus tollen | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, and a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, hence sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was found with a bag of cash then laura's wedding ring is missing, and laura's wedding ring is not missing, which establishes that john davis was not found with a bag of cash. | If john davis was found with a bag of cash then laura's wedding ring is missing | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | modus tollen | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | Laura's wedding ring is missing | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was found with a bag of cash then laura's wedding ring is missing, and laura's wedding ring is not missing, which establishes that 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|>
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, which establishes that the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim. | If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | modus ponen | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, which establishes that the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the movie is a comedy, and the movie is not a comedy, so it can be concluded that no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim. | If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the movie is a comedy | The movie is not a comedy | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | modus tollen | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The movie is a comedy | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The movie is not a comedy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the movie is a comedy, and the movie is not a comedy, so it can be concluded that no surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then dogs are not fish, and dogs are fish, thus the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact. | If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then dogs are not fish | Dogs are fish | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | modus tollen | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | Dogs are not fish | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | Dogs are fish | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then dogs are not fish, and dogs are fish, thus the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, hence the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect. | If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | Surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | 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: ```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, hence the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is shining, since if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the sun is shining and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime. | If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the sun is shining | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The sun is shining | modus ponen | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The sun is shining | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | The sun is not shining | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is shining, since if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the sun is shining and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a romance novel then the movie is a family film, and the movie is not a family film, which shows that the book is not a romance novel. | If the book is a romance novel then the movie is a family film | The movie is not a family film | The book is not a romance novel | modus tollen | The book is a romance novel | The movie is a family film | The book is not a romance novel | The movie is not a family film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a romance novel then the movie is a family film, and the movie is not a family film, which shows that the book is not a romance novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, as if a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the cat is black and the cat is not black. | If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the cat is black | The cat is not black | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | modus tollen | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | The cat is black | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | The cat is not black | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, as if a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the cat is black and the cat is not black.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a romance novel then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and the book is a romance novel, which shows that john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit. | If the book is a romance novel then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The book is a romance novel | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus ponen | The book is a romance novel | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The book is not a romance novel | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a romance novel then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and the book is a romance novel, which shows that john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, as if the baby is crawling towards the door then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement and the baby is crawling towards the door. | If the baby is crawling towards the door then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | The baby is crawling towards the door | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the door | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | The baby is not crawling towards the door | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the 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: ```Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, as if the baby is crawling towards the door then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement and the baby is crawling towards the door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Dogs are fish, as if dogs are not fish then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene and no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene. | If dogs are not fish then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | Dogs are fish | modus tollen | Dogs are not fish | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | Dogs are fish | 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: ```Dogs are fish, as if dogs are not fish then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene and no witness saw a masked man 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 dog is barking then the baby is crawling towards the door, and the baby is not crawling towards the door, which establishes that the dog is not barking. | If the dog is barking then the baby is crawling towards the door | The baby is not crawling towards the door | The dog is not barking | modus tollen | The dog is barking | The baby is crawling towards the door | The dog is not barking | The baby is not crawling towards the door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking then the baby is crawling towards the door, and the baby is not crawling towards the door, which establishes that the dog is not barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the dog is barking at the dog next door, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, so it can be concluded that the dog is barking at the dog next door. | If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the dog is barking at the dog next door | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | The dog is barking at the dog next door | modus ponen | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | The dog is barking at the dog next door | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the dog is barking at the dog next door, and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, so it can be concluded that the dog is barking at the dog next door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker, hence the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause. | If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | modus tollen | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | Laura's diary does not contain mentions 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 victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker, hence the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, therefore a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment. | If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | Officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | modus tollen | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | 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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, therefore a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the dog is barking at the dog next door, and the dog is not barking at the dog next door, thus no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house. | If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the dog is barking at the dog next door | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The dog is barking at the dog next door | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the dog is barking at the dog next door, and the dog is not barking at the dog next door, thus no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the baby is crying in the car, and the baby is not crying in the car, which establishes that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the baby is crying in the car | The baby is not crying in the car | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | modus tollen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | The baby is crying in the car | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | The baby is not crying in the car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the baby is crying in the car, and the baby is not crying in the car, which establishes that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt 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 surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, hence the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | 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 surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, hence the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, as if the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal. | If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | modus tollen | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | 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: ```The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, as if the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal and laura's bank account did not have 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 the pizza is hot then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals, which establishes that the pizza is not hot. | If the pizza is hot then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | The pizza is not hot | modus tollen | The pizza is hot | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The pizza is not hot | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the pizza is hot then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals, which establishes that the pizza is not hot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If paris is in france then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and paris is in france, thus a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene. | If paris is in france then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | Paris is in france | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | modus ponen | Paris is in France | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | Paris is not in France | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If paris is in france then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and paris is in france, thus a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, which shows that emily had not recently taken a self-defense course. | If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | modus tollen | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, which shows that emily had not 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|>
|
John davis had a history of identity theft, as if laura's laptop was found smashed then john davis had a history of identity theft and laura's laptop was found smashed. | If laura's laptop was found smashed then john davis had a history of identity theft | Laura's laptop was found smashed | John Davis had a history of identity theft | modus ponen | Laura's laptop was found smashed | John Davis had a history of identity theft | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | 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: ```John davis had a history of identity theft, as if laura's laptop was found smashed then john davis had a history of identity theft and laura's laptop was found smashed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the cat then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and the baby is crawling towards the cat, so the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors. | If the baby is crawling towards the cat then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The baby is crawling towards the cat | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the cat | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the cat then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and the baby is crawling towards the cat, so the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors.```<|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 victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment, therefore a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene. | If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | modus tollen | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | 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 a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment, therefore 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 a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, so the victim's name is sarah mitchell. | If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the victim's name is sarah mitchell | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | modus ponen | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, so the victim's name is sarah mitchell.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is not barking at the mail truck, so it can be concluded that no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the dog is barking at the mail truck | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The dog is barking at the mail truck | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is not barking at the mail truck, so it can be concluded that no 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 tree is shedding leaves then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats, which establishes that the tree is not shedding leaves. | If the tree is shedding leaves then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | The tree is not shedding leaves | modus tollen | The tree is shedding leaves | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The tree is not shedding leaves | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is shedding leaves then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats, which establishes that the tree is not shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, because if the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy. | If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | modus tollen | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, because if the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If dogs are not fish then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and dogs are not fish, thus a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster. | If dogs are not fish then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Dogs are not fish | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | modus ponen | Dogs are not fish | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Dogs are fish | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If dogs are not fish then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and dogs are not fish, thus a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, so it can be concluded that john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit. | If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus ponen | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, so it can be concluded that john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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, which implies that no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom. | If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | modus tollen | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | 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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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, which implies that no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, therefore surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery. | If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, therefore surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is a biography, since if surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the book is a biography and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the book is a biography | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The book is a biography | modus ponen | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The book is a biography | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The book is not a biography | 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 a biography, since if surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the book is a biography and surveillance footage showed 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 sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, thus a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | modus ponen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, thus a 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 the cat is black then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and the cat is black, which establishes that surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime. | If the cat is black then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The cat is black | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | modus ponen | The cat is black | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The cat is not black | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is black then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and the cat is black, which establishes that surveillance footage showed 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 a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms, so no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house. | If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms | John davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms, so no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, so the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest. | If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | modus tollen | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, so the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, since if the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the murder weapon was a baseball bat and the murder weapon was not a baseball bat. | If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the murder weapon was a baseball bat | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | modus tollen | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | 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: ```The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, since if the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the murder weapon was a baseball bat and the murder weapon was not 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|>
|
Detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, as if detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car and no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car. | If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car | No bloody shirt was found in john davis's car | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | modus tollen | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, as if detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car and no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, which establishes that a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags. | If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | John davis had recently purchased a firearm | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | modus ponen | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, which establishes that a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is exciting then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, and the movie is exciting, therefore the suspect had a history of violence against the victim. | If the movie is exciting then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The movie is exciting | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | modus ponen | The movie is exciting | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The movie is not exciting | 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 movie is exciting then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, and the movie is exciting, therefore 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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, therefore no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom. | If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | modus tollen | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, therefore no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is a sports film, because if a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the movie is a sports film and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home. | If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the movie is a sports film | A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home | The movie is a sports film | modus ponen | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | The movie is a sports film | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | The movie is not a sports film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is a sports film, because if a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the movie is a sports film and 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|>
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, since if the baby is sleeping then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder and the baby is sleeping. | If the baby is sleeping then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The baby is sleeping | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | modus ponen | The baby is sleeping | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The baby is not sleeping | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, since if the baby is sleeping then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder and 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|>
|
John davis had a history of financial problems, since if a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then john davis had a history of financial problems and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning. | If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then john davis had a history of financial problems | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | John Davis had a history of financial problems | modus ponen | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | John Davis had a history of financial problems | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | 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: ```John davis had a history of financial problems, since if a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then john davis had a history of financial problems and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.```<|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 a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, which implies 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 a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox | A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, which implies 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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the suspect's name is john davis, and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, therefore the suspect's name is john davis. | If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the suspect's name is john davis | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The suspect's name is John Davis | modus ponen | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The suspect's name is John Davis | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The suspect's name is not John Davis | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the suspect's name is john davis, and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, therefore the suspect's name is john davis.```<|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 reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, since if a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the book is a biography and the book is not a biography. | If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the book is a biography | The book is not a biography | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The book is a biography | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The book is not a biography | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, since if a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the book is a biography and the book is not a biography.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, which implies that a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace. | If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | modus tollen | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, which implies that a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's passport is missing then sally is older than john, and sally is not older than john, so laura's passport is not missing. | If laura's passport is missing then sally is older than john | Sally is not older than john | Laura's passport is not missing | modus tollen | Laura's passport is missing | Sally is older than John | Laura's passport is not missing | Sally is not older than John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's passport is missing then sally is older than john, and sally is not older than john, so laura's passport is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, hence the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems. | If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | Officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, hence the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the sun is setting, and the sun is not setting, which establishes that the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities. | If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the sun is setting | The sun is not setting | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | The sun is setting | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | The sun is not setting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the sun is setting, and the sun is not setting, which establishes that the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which establishes that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the book is written by a famous author | The book is not written by a famous author | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | modus tollen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | The book is written by a famous author | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which establishes that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|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 detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a history of financial problems. | If john davis had a history of financial problems then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of financial problems | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of financial problems then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a history of financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the movie is a documentary, and the movie is not a documentary, so emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle. | If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the movie is a documentary | The movie is not a documentary | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | modus tollen | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The movie is a documentary | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | 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: ```If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the movie is a documentary, and the movie is not a documentary, so emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, as if laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop. | If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus ponen | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, as if laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
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, so 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, so 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 homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery, which shows that 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 security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | 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 security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery, which shows that 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 the baby is crying loudly 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, so it can be concluded that the baby is not crying loudly. | If the baby is crying loudly 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 baby is not crying loudly | modus tollen | The baby is crying loudly | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The baby is not crying loudly | 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 baby is crying loudly 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, so it can be concluded that the baby is not crying loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, hence no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack. | If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | modus tollen | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | 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 a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, hence no 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 laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the book is on the bestseller list, and the book is not on the bestseller list, thus laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization. | If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the book is on the bestseller list | The book is not on the bestseller list | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | modus tollen | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The book is on the bestseller list | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | The book is not on the bestseller list | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the book is on the bestseller list, and the book is not on the bestseller list, thus laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door, as if a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the book is a bestseller and the book is not a bestseller. | If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the book is a bestseller | The book is not a bestseller | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | modus tollen | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | The book is a bestseller | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | The book is not a bestseller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door, as if a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the book is a bestseller and the book is not a bestseller.```<|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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, as if laura's car was found with a slashed tire then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker and laura's car was found with a slashed tire. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | modus ponen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | Laura's diary does not contain mentions 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: ```Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, as if laura's car was found with a slashed tire then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker and laura's car was found with a slashed tire.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had installed a home security system then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and laura had installed a home security system, which implies that a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home. | If laura had installed a home security system then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | Laura had installed a home security system | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | modus ponen | Laura had installed a home security system | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | Laura had not installed a home security system | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had installed a home security system then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and laura had installed a home security system, which implies that a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and the book is written by a famous author, so it can be concluded that a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery. | If the book is written by a famous author then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | The book is written by a famous author | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | modus ponen | The book is written by a famous author | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | The book is not written by a famous author | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and the book is written by a famous author, so it can be concluded that a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, so a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder. | If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | modus ponen | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, so a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, therefore emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout. | If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | modus tollen | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, therefore emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.```<|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 phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, which establishes that laura's medical records were accessed without authorization. | If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | modus ponen | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, which establishes that laura's medical records were accessed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, since if detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse. | If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | modus ponen | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, since if detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, and the suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim, which implies that no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster. | If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | modus tollen | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | 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 a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, and the suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim, which implies that no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, as if the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead. | If the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | modus ponen | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, as if the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene and the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the dog next door then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, therefore the dog is not barking at the dog next door. | If the dog is barking at the dog next door then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the dog next door | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | 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 the dog is barking at the dog next door then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, therefore the dog is not barking at the dog next door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, and the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement, therefore detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park. | If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | modus tollen | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, and the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement, therefore detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms, hence no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder. | If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms | John davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | modus tollen | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms, hence no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, therefore the suspect had a history of mental health issues. | If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then the suspect had a history of mental health issues | A witness heard screams coming from laura's house | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | modus ponen | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | 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 heard screams coming from laura's house then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, therefore the suspect had a history of mental health issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, so it can be concluded that no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster. | If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | No witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | modus tollen | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, so it can be concluded that no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, hence the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime. | If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | modus ponen | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, hence the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, so it can be concluded that richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions. | If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | modus tollen | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near 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 richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, so it can be concluded that richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the suspect had no history of mental health issues, therefore the baby is not teething. | If the baby is teething then the suspect had a history of mental health issues | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | The baby is not teething | modus tollen | The baby is teething | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | The baby is not teething | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the suspect had no history of mental health issues, therefore the baby is not teething.```<|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 laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, and the sun is setting, therefore laura had recently changed the locks on her doors. | If the sun is setting then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | The sun is setting | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | modus ponen | The sun is setting | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | The sun is not setting | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | 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 laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, and the sun is setting, therefore laura had recently changed the locks on her doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, so a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo. | If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | modus tollen | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, so a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, thus the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | modus ponen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | 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 a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, thus the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the weather is cold and rainy, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, therefore the weather is cold and rainy. | If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the weather is cold and rainy | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The weather is cold and rainy | modus ponen | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The weather is cold and rainy | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | The weather is not cold and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then the weather is cold and rainy, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, therefore the weather is cold and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the sun is setting, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, which shows that the sun is setting. | If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the sun is setting | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | The sun is setting | modus ponen | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | The sun is setting | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | The sun is not setting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the sun is setting, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, which shows that the sun is setting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, since if sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the sun is shining and the sun is not shining. | If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the sun is shining | The sun is not shining | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | modus tollen | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | The sun is shining | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | The sun is not shining | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, since if sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then the sun is shining and the sun is not shining.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the football is round, and the football is not round, which implies that footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store. | If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the football is round | The football is not round | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | modus tollen | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | The football is round | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | The football is not round | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the football is round, and the football is not round, which implies that footprints from muddy boots were not found in 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 laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the book is on the bestseller list, and the book is not on the bestseller list, which establishes that laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization. | If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the book is on the bestseller list | The book is not on the bestseller list | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | modus tollen | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The book is on the bestseller list | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | The book is not on the bestseller list | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the book is on the bestseller list, and the book is not on the bestseller list, which establishes that laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the arson occurred on elm street, and a bloody footprint was found in the living room, so the arson occurred on elm street. | If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the arson occurred on elm street | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | The arson occurred on Elm Street | modus ponen | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | The arson occurred on Elm Street | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the arson occurred on elm street, and a bloody footprint was found in the living room, so the arson occurred on elm street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, because if emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the bird is singing and the bird is not singing. | If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the bird is singing | The bird is not singing | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | modus tollen | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The bird is singing | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The bird is not singing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, because if emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the bird is singing and the bird is not singing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, so it can be concluded that a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby. | If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | modus ponen | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, so it can be concluded that a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, which establishes that a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene. | If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | modus ponen | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, which establishes that a security camera captured 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 the cat is black then laura's garage door was left open, and laura's garage door was not left open, so it can be concluded that the cat is not black. | If the cat is black then laura's garage door was left open | Laura's garage door was not left open | The cat is not black | modus tollen | The cat is black | Laura's garage door was left open | The cat is not black | Laura's garage door was not left open | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is black then laura's garage door was left open, and laura's garage door was not left open, so it can be concluded that the cat is not black.```<|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.