Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.
stringlengths 74
421
| If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
stringlengths 36
192
| Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 788
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street
stringclasses 788
values | modus ponen
stringclasses 2
values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1
stringclasses 394
values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street
stringclasses 394
values | True
bool 1
class | text
stringlengths 453
800
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the phone is ringing, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, hence the phone is ringing.
|
If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the phone is ringing
|
A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
The phone is ringing
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
The phone is ringing
|
A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
The phone is not ringing
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the phone is ringing, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, hence the phone is ringing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, which establishes that the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.
|
If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
modus ponen
|
Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, which establishes that the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.
|
If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
modus ponen
|
A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, and no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, which implies that a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.
|
If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
|
No bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
|
A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
|
A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
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: ```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, and no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, which implies that a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, because if a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.
|
If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
|
No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
modus tollen
|
A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office
|
The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, because if a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with toys then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, which implies that the baby is not playing with toys.
|
If the baby is playing with toys then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
|
The baby is not playing with toys
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is playing with toys
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
|
The baby is not playing with toys
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with toys then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, which implies that the baby is not playing with toys.```<|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 john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and laura had installed a home security system, which implies that john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs.
|
If laura had installed a home security system then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
|
modus ponen
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
|
John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had installed a home security system then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and laura had installed a home security system, which implies that john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's wedding ring is missing then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, and laura's wedding ring is missing, which establishes that emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.
|
If laura's wedding ring is missing then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
Laura's wedding ring is missing
|
Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's wedding ring is missing
|
Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
Laura's wedding ring is not missing
|
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 laura's wedding ring is missing then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, and laura's wedding ring is missing, which establishes that emily's computer contained 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|>
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, as if the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail.
|
If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
modus ponen
|
The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
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: ```A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, as if the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby and 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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, which establishes that the dog is barking at the neighbors.
|
If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the dog is barking at the neighbors
|
Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
|
The dog is barking at the neighbors
|
modus ponen
|
Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
|
The dog is barking at the neighbors
|
Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
|
The dog is not barking at the neighbors
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, which establishes that the dog is barking at the neighbors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething on a toy then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the cat is not sleeping on the couch, which implies that the baby is not teething on a toy.
|
If the baby is teething on a toy then the cat is sleeping on the couch
|
The cat is not sleeping on the couch
|
The baby is not teething on a toy
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is teething on a toy
|
The cat is sleeping on the couch
|
The baby is not teething on a toy
|
The cat is not sleeping on the couch
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething on a toy then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the cat is not sleeping on the couch, which implies that the baby is not teething on a toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, because if laura's pet cat is missing then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder and laura's pet cat is missing.
|
If laura's pet cat is missing then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
|
Laura's pet cat is missing
|
The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's pet cat is missing
|
The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
|
Laura's pet cat is not missing
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene 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: ```The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, because if laura's pet cat is missing then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder and laura's pet cat is missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not barking at the neighbors, because if the dog is barking at the neighbors 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.
|
If the dog is barking at the neighbors 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 dog is not barking at the neighbors
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking at the neighbors
|
The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years
|
The dog is not barking at the neighbors
|
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: ```The dog is not barking at the neighbors, because if the dog is barking at the neighbors 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.```<|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 john davis had bruises on his arms, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, so it can be concluded that john davis had bruises on his arms.
|
If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then john davis had bruises on his arms
|
John davis had recently purchased a firearm
|
John Davis had bruises on his arms
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had recently purchased a firearm
|
John Davis had bruises on his arms
|
John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm
|
John Davis did not have bruises on his arms
| 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 john davis had bruises on his arms, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, so it can be concluded that john davis had bruises on his arms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, which implies that the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.
|
If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
|
The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
|
The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, which implies that the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.```<|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 water is warm then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, which shows that the water is not warm.
|
If the water is warm then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
|
The water is not warm
|
modus tollen
|
The water is warm
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
|
The water is not warm
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the water is warm then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, which shows that the water is not warm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the book is a mystery novel, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, therefore the book is a mystery novel.
|
If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the book is a mystery novel
|
Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
The book is a mystery novel
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
The book is a mystery novel
|
Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
The book is not a mystery novel
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the book is a mystery novel, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, therefore the book is a mystery novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, so it can be concluded that sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
|
Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily
|
modus ponen
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
|
Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
|
Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, so it can be concluded that sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the weather is cold and rainy, and the weather is not cold and rainy, which shows that surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.
|
If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the weather is cold and rainy
|
The weather is not cold and rainy
|
Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
|
modus tollen
|
Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
|
The weather is cold and rainy
|
Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
|
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 surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the weather is cold and rainy, and the weather is not cold and rainy, which shows that surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, which shows that officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.
|
If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it
|
The murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it
|
Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
modus tollen
|
Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it
|
Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene
|
The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, which shows that officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the movie is exciting, and the sun is shining brightly in the sky, which implies that the movie is exciting.
|
If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the movie is exciting
|
The sun is shining brightly in the sky
|
The movie is exciting
|
modus ponen
|
The sun is shining brightly in the sky
|
The movie is exciting
|
The sun is not shining brightly in the sky
|
The movie is not exciting
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the movie is exciting, and the sun is shining brightly in the sky, which implies that the movie is exciting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the movie is exciting, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, which establishes that the movie is exciting.
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the movie is exciting
|
The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
|
The movie is exciting
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
|
The movie is exciting
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
|
The movie is not exciting
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the movie is exciting, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, which establishes that the movie is exciting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness heard screams coming from laura's house, since if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors.
|
If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house
|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
|
A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
modus ponen
|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
|
A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors
|
No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness heard screams coming from laura's house, since if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house and 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 the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, so it can be concluded that the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.
|
If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
|
The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, so it can be concluded that the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, and the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities, hence a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
|
A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
modus tollen
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, and the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities, hence a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.```<|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 nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, so it can be concluded that detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.
|
If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
|
Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
|
Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
|
modus tollen
|
Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse
|
Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder
|
Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
|
Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after 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 detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, so it can be concluded that detective nguyen did not find 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 richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the car is moving, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, thus the car is moving.
|
If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the car is moving
|
Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
|
The car is moving
|
modus ponen
|
Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
|
The car is moving
|
Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine
|
The car is not moving
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the car is moving, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, thus the car is moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect, since if a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then the sun is shining and the sun is not shining.
|
If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then the sun is shining
|
The sun is not shining
|
A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect
|
modus tollen
|
A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect
|
The sun is shining
|
A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect
|
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: ```A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect, since if a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect 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|>
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly, as if the cat is sleeping soundly then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery and the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery.
|
If the cat is sleeping soundly then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery
|
The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is sleeping soundly
|
The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly
|
The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is not sleeping soundly, as if the cat is sleeping soundly then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery and the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, and laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.
|
If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
|
Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions
|
A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions
|
A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
|
Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions
|
A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, and laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the sun is setting slowly, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, which establishes that the sun is setting slowly.
|
If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the sun is setting slowly
|
A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
The sun is setting slowly
|
modus ponen
|
A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
The sun is setting slowly
|
No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
The sun is not setting slowly
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the sun is setting slowly, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, which establishes that the sun is setting slowly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, so it can be concluded that richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account.
|
If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account
|
The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
|
Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account
|
modus ponen
|
The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago
|
Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account
|
The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago
|
Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, so it can be concluded that richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, because if the dog is barking at the door then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis and the dog is barking at the door.
|
If the dog is barking at the door then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis
|
The dog is barking at the door
|
Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking at the door
|
Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis
|
The dog is not barking at the door
|
Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, because if the dog is barking at the door then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis and the dog is barking at the door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is black then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and the cat is black, which implies that john davis had scratches on his arms and neck.
|
If the cat is black then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck
|
The cat is black
|
John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is black
|
John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck
|
The cat is not black
|
John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is black then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and the cat is black, which implies that john davis had scratches on his arms and neck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the car then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and the baby is crying in the car, so john davis had a cache of illegal firearms.
|
If the baby is crying in the car then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms
|
The baby is crying in the car
|
John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is crying in the car
|
John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms
|
The baby is not crying in the car
|
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 the baby is crying in the car then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and the baby is crying in the car, so john davis had a cache of illegal firearms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, since if the baby is crawling towards the door then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop and the baby is crawling towards the door.
|
If the baby is crawling towards the door then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
The baby is crawling towards the door
|
Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is crawling towards the door
|
Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
The baby is not crawling towards the door
|
No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, since if the baby is crawling towards the door then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop and the baby is crawling towards the door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the dog is barking at the mailman, thus the victim's name is sarah mitchell.
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then the victim's name is sarah mitchell
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman
|
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 the dog is barking at the mailman then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the dog is barking at the mailman, thus 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|>
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, because if fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.
|
If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
modus ponen
|
Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
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: ```A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, because if fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, since if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder.
|
If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene
|
The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene
|
The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
|
No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, since if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene and the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, so a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house.
|
If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
|
No suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
|
A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, so a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911, because if laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the book is interesting and the book is not interesting.
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the book is interesting
|
The book is not interesting
|
Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's phone records show calls to 911
|
The book is interesting
|
Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
|
The book is not interesting
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911, because if laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the book is interesting and the book is not interesting.```<|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 did not hear a gunshot, since if a neighbor heard a gunshot then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment and the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.
|
If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment
|
The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment
|
A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot
|
The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment
|
A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
|
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: ```A neighbor did not hear a gunshot, since if a neighbor heard a gunshot then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment and the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, hence john davis had a history of anger management issues.
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then john davis had a history of anger management issues
|
A recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
|
John Davis had a history of anger management issues
|
modus ponen
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat
|
John Davis had a history of anger management issues
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
|
John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, hence john davis had a history of anger management issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, because if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the book is a memoir and the book is not a memoir.
|
If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the book is a memoir
|
The book is not a memoir
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
|
modus tollen
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
|
The book is a memoir
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
|
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: ```The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, because if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the book is a memoir and the book is not a memoir.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data, so laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors.
|
If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors
|
modus tollen
|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
|
The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data, so laura had not 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|>
|
John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, since if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
modus ponen
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
|
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 a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe and a forensic expert identified 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|>
|
A broken window was found in laura's bedroom, since if officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.
|
If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom
|
Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet
|
A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
modus ponen
|
Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
|
A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
|
No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A broken window was found in laura's bedroom, since if officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.```<|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 a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, so a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.
|
If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities
|
A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
|
The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities
|
No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
| 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 a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, so a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then paris is in france, and paris is not in france, hence a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox.
|
If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then paris is in france
|
Paris is not in france
|
A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox
|
modus tollen
|
A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox
|
Paris is in France
|
A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox
|
Paris is not in France
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then paris is in france, and paris is not in france, hence a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, so it can be concluded that no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway
|
Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway
|
No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway
|
No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, so it can be concluded that no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking, since if the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then the dog is barking and the cat is purring contentedly on my lap.
|
If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then the dog is barking
|
The cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
The dog is barking
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
The dog is barking
|
The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap
|
The dog is not barking
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking, since if the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then the dog is barking and the cat is purring contentedly on my lap.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the football is round then laura's social media accounts were hacked, and laura's social media accounts were not hacked, which establishes that the football is not round.
|
If the football is round then laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
|
The football is not round
|
modus tollen
|
The football is round
|
Laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
The football is not round
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the football is round then laura's social media accounts were hacked, and laura's social media accounts were not hacked, which establishes that the football is not round.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, thus a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.
|
If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
|
The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
|
modus ponen
|
The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
|
The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, thus a forensic expert identified 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 laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, which shows that laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
John davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
| 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 neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, which shows that laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The car is a hybrid, as if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the car is a hybrid and a forensic expert identified 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 car is a hybrid
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
|
The car is a hybrid
|
modus ponen
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
|
The car is a hybrid
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
|
The car is not a hybrid
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is a hybrid, as if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the car is a hybrid and a forensic expert identified 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|>
|
The sun is not shining, since if the sun is shining then the baby is playing with a toy car and the baby is not playing with a toy car.
|
If the sun is shining then the baby is playing with a toy car
|
The baby is not playing with a toy car
|
The sun is not shining
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is shining
|
The baby is playing with a toy car
|
The sun is not shining
|
The baby is not playing with a toy car
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not shining, since if the sun is shining then the baby is playing with a toy car and the baby is not playing with a toy 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 the dog is barking at the neighbors then the book is interesting, and the book is not interesting, so the dog is not barking at the neighbors.
|
If the dog is barking at the neighbors then the book is interesting
|
The book is not interesting
|
The dog is not barking at the neighbors
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking at the neighbors
|
The book is interesting
|
The dog is not barking at the neighbors
|
The book is not interesting
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the neighbors then the book is interesting, and the book is not interesting, so the dog is not barking at the neighbors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with, because if laura's mail was tampered with then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers and emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers.
|
If laura's mail was tampered with then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers
|
Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's mail was tampered with
|
Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with
|
Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's mail was not tampered with, because if laura's mail was tampered with then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers and emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, so the cat is sleeping on the couch.
|
If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then the cat is sleeping on the couch
|
A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
The cat is sleeping on the couch
|
modus ponen
|
A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
The cat is sleeping on the couch
|
No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
The cat is not sleeping on the couch
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, so the cat is sleeping on the couch.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not drinking from a bottle, because if the baby is drinking from a bottle then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit and john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit.
|
If the baby is drinking from a bottle then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
|
John davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit
|
The baby is not drinking from a bottle
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is drinking from a bottle
|
John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit
|
The baby is not drinking from a bottle
|
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: ```The baby is not drinking from a bottle, because if the baby is drinking from a bottle then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit and john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, which implies that laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed
|
Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, which implies that laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, therefore detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.
|
If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
|
Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
modus ponen
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo
|
Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
|
Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, therefore detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, hence the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail.
|
If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
John davis had a history of psychiatric issues
|
The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues
|
The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues
|
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 john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, hence 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, and a bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door, therefore the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.
|
If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door
|
A bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door
|
The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
|
modus tollen
|
The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
|
A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door
|
The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
|
A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, and a bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door, therefore the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and the baby is not crawling towards the cat, which shows that a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the baby is crawling towards the cat
|
The baby is not crawling towards the cat
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene
|
The baby is crawling towards the cat
|
A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene
|
The baby is not crawling towards the cat
| 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 baby is crawling towards the cat, and the baby is not crawling towards the cat, which shows that 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 it is raining today then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, which implies that it is not raining today.
|
If it is raining today then john davis had a history of stalking laura
|
John davis did not have a history of stalking laura
|
It is not raining today
|
modus tollen
|
It is raining today
|
John Davis had a history of stalking Laura
|
It is not raining today
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If it is raining today then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, which implies that it is not raining today.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, as if a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary and a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house.
|
If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
|
A neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house
|
The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
|
A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, as if a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary and a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's name is sarah mitchell, because if the baby is laughing at the toy then the victim's name is sarah mitchell and the baby is laughing at the toy.
|
If the baby is laughing at the toy then the victim's name is sarah mitchell
|
The baby is laughing at the toy
|
The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is laughing at the toy
|
The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell
|
The baby is not laughing at the toy
|
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: ```The victim's name is sarah mitchell, because if the baby is laughing at the toy then the victim's name is sarah mitchell and the baby is laughing at the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, because if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information.
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
|
The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
|
The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, because if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the baby is sleeping, and the baby is not sleeping, hence a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat.
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the baby is sleeping
|
The baby is not sleeping
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
|
modus tollen
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat
|
The baby is sleeping
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
|
The baby is not sleeping
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the baby is sleeping, and the baby is not sleeping, hence a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat.```<|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 identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, since if the movie is a horror film then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence and the movie is a horror film.
|
If the movie is a horror film then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence
|
The movie is a horror film
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a horror film
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
|
The movie is not a horror film
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence
| 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 identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, since if the movie is a horror film then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence and the movie is a horror film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, therefore the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
|
The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, therefore the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, which shows that a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine.
|
If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire
|
A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine
|
modus tollen
|
A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine
|
Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, which shows that a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, hence laura's medical records were accessed without authorization.
|
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
modus ponen
|
Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization
|
Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
|
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 officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, hence laura's medical records were accessed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, therefore a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.
|
If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
|
modus tollen
|
A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder
|
A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, therefore a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a romance novel then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, thus the book is not a romance novel.
|
If the book is a romance novel then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house
|
No hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house
|
The book is not a romance novel
|
modus tollen
|
The book is a romance novel
|
A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
|
The book is not a romance novel
|
No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a romance novel then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, thus 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|>
|
Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, since if john davis had a history of anger management issues then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery and john davis had a history of anger management issues.
|
If john davis had a history of anger management issues then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
John davis had a history of anger management issues
|
Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a history of anger management issues
|
Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues
|
Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, since if john davis had a history of anger management issues then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery and john davis had a history of anger management issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is parked on the street then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, and emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers, which implies that the car is not parked on the street.
|
If the car is parked on the street then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers
|
Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers
|
The car is not parked on the street
|
modus tollen
|
The car is parked on the street
|
Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers
|
The car is not parked on the street
|
Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is parked on the street then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, and emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers, which implies that the car is not parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then laura had installed a home security system, and laura had not installed a home security system, so it can be concluded that the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap.
|
If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then laura had installed a home security system
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
|
The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then laura had installed a home security system, and laura had not installed a home security system, so it can be concluded that the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, because if officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.
|
If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
|
The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
modus ponen
|
Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
|
The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store
|
The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, because if officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, thus the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard.
|
If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
|
A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack
|
The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
|
modus ponen
|
A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
|
The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
|
No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
|
The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, thus the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then the weather is cold and rainy, and the weather is not cold and rainy, thus the book is not written by a famous author.
|
If the book is written by a famous author then the weather is cold and rainy
|
The weather is not cold and rainy
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
modus tollen
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
The weather is cold and rainy
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
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 book is written by a famous author then the weather is cold and rainy, and the weather is not cold and rainy, thus the book is not written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, thus a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop.
|
If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer brown discovered a hidden basement
|
Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement
|
A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
|
modus tollen
|
A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
|
Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement
|
A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
|
Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, thus a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a history of substance abuse, as if john davis had a history of substance abuse then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.
|
If john davis had a history of substance abuse then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
John davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
|
John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a history of substance abuse
|
John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse
|
John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a history of substance abuse, as if john davis had a history of substance abuse then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.```<|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 a shattered vase was found in the hallway, and the movie is exciting, therefore a shattered vase was found in the hallway.
|
If the movie is exciting then a shattered vase was found in the hallway
|
The movie is exciting
|
A shattered vase was found in the hallway
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is exciting
|
A shattered vase was found in the hallway
|
The movie is not exciting
|
A shattered vase was not found in the hallway
| 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 a shattered vase was found in the hallway, and the movie is exciting, therefore a shattered vase was found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly then the book is a bestseller, and the book is not a bestseller, which establishes that the sun is not setting slowly.
|
If the sun is setting slowly then the book is a bestseller
|
The book is not a bestseller
|
The sun is not setting slowly
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is setting slowly
|
The book is a bestseller
|
The sun is not setting slowly
|
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: ```If the sun is setting slowly then the book is a bestseller, and the book is not a bestseller, which establishes that the sun is not setting slowly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the sun is shining, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, which establishes that the sun is shining.
|
If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the sun is shining
|
Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house
|
The sun is shining
|
modus ponen
|
Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
|
The sun is shining
|
Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house
|
The sun is not shining
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the sun is shining, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, which establishes that the sun is shining.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, which shows that the book is not written by a famous author.
|
If the book is written by a famous author then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past
|
John davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
modus tollen
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, which shows that the book is not written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, therefore the suspect had a history of mental health issues.
|
If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then the suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery
|
The suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
modus ponen
|
The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery
|
The suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery
|
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 alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, 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 the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the movie is a musical film, and the movie is not a musical film, which shows that the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker.
|
If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the movie is a musical film
|
The movie is not a musical film
|
The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker
|
modus tollen
|
The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker
|
The movie is a musical film
|
The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker
|
The movie is not a musical film
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the movie is a musical film, and the movie is not a musical film, which shows that the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, so it can be concluded that the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage.
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
|
The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
|
modus ponen
|
The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage
|
The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, so it can be concluded that the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, and the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, therefore john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.
|
If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest
|
The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, and the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, therefore john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, hence the sun is shining brightly overhead.
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the sun is shining brightly overhead
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings
|
The sun is shining brightly overhead
|
modus ponen
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings
|
The sun is shining brightly overhead
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings
|
The sun is not shining brightly overhead
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, hence the sun is shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, which establishes that 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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
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
|
Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
|
Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
| 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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, which establishes that 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|>
|
The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact, as if the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
|
Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
|
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
|
Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
|
The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact
|
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's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact, as if the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact 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 baby is crying in the stroller then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, hence the baby is not crying in the stroller.
|
If the baby is crying in the stroller then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
The baby is not crying in the stroller
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is crying in the stroller
|
Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
The baby is not crying in the stroller
|
Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
| 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 in the stroller then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, hence the baby is not crying in the stroller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, which shows that emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.
|
If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
modus ponen
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout
|
The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
|
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 the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, which shows that emily's computer contained 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 sun is shining then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which establishes that the sun is not shining.
|
If the sun is shining then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The sun is not shining
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is shining
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect
|
The sun is not shining
|
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 the sun is shining then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which establishes that the sun is not shining.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the apple is red then the suspect's name is john davis, and the apple is red, so the suspect's name is john davis.
|
If the apple is red then the suspect's name is john davis
|
The apple is red
|
The suspect's name is John Davis
|
modus ponen
|
The apple is red
|
The suspect's name is John Davis
|
The apple is not red
|
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 the apple is red then the suspect's name is john davis, and the apple is red, so 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|>
|
If the dog is happy then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and the dog is happy, thus a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.
|
If the dog is happy then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
The dog is happy
|
A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is happy
|
A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
|
The dog is not happy
|
No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is happy then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and the dog is happy, thus a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.