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 coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, so it can be concluded that john davis was found with a bag of cash. | If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then john davis was found with a bag of cash | A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | modus ponen | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, so it can be concluded that john davis was found with a bag of cash.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then john davis had a secret storage unit, and john davis did not have a secret storage unit, so no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then john davis had a secret storage unit | John davis did not have a secret storage unit | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | modus tollen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | John Davis had a secret storage unit | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | 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 hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then john davis had a secret storage unit, and john davis did not have a secret storage unit, so no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, therefore 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 sun is setting slowly | The sun is not setting slowly | 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 sun is setting slowly | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | 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 laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, therefore 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 woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, so a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene. | If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | modus ponen | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, so a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, hence a bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a bloody footprint was found in the living room | John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus ponen | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | 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 a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, hence a bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|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 had a history of changing her locks frequently, and laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently, hence 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 had a history of changing her locks frequently | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | 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 had a history of changing her locks frequently | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, and laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently, hence 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|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, which shows that a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, which shows that a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, which implies that john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest. | If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | modus ponen | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | 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 the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, which implies that john davis had 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 victim's name is laura martinez then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, and john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues, thus the victim's name is not laura martinez. | If the victim's name is laura martinez then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues | John davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | modus tollen | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's name is laura martinez then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, and john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues, thus the victim's name is not laura martinez.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not crawling towards the cat, as if the baby is crawling towards the cat then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If the baby is crawling towards the cat then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the cat | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not crawling towards the cat, as if the baby is crawling towards the cat then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|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 local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the eiffel tower is not in paris, which establishes that a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement. | If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the eiffel tower is in paris | The eiffel tower is not in paris | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | modus tollen | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the eiffel tower is not in paris, which establishes that a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then the victim's name is laura martinez, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, which establishes that the victim's name is laura martinez. | If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then the victim's name is laura martinez | John davis had a history of violating restraining orders | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then the victim's name is laura martinez, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, which establishes that the victim's name is laura martinez.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The bird is singing, because if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the bird is singing and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the bird is singing | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The bird is singing | modus ponen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The bird is singing | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The bird is not singing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The bird is singing, because if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the bird is singing and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, which implies that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | 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: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, which implies that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is teething, as if the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then the baby is teething and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage. | If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then the baby is teething | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | The baby is teething | modus ponen | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | The baby is teething | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | The baby is not teething | 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 teething, as if the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then the baby is teething and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, which implies that a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits. | If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer brown discovered a hidden basement | Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | modus tollen | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, which implies that a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then the movie is exciting, and the movie is not exciting, thus no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car. | If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then the movie is exciting | The movie is not exciting | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | modus tollen | A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | The movie is exciting | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | The movie is not exciting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then the movie is exciting, and the movie is not exciting, thus no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, which implies that a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | modus ponen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, which implies that a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, since if the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id and no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id. | If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | modus tollen | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, since if the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id and no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, which implies that a broken chair was not found in the kitchen. | If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | modus tollen | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, which implies that a broken chair was not found in the kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, which establishes that a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway. | If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | modus ponen | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was 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 suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, which establishes that a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size 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 a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop, so it can be concluded that a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily. | If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | modus tollen | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop, so it can be concluded that a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, and the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, hence a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment. | If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | modus ponen | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, and the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, hence a 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|>
|
If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the eiffel tower is not in paris, hence no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene. | If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then the eiffel tower is in paris | The eiffel tower is not in paris | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | 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 a masked man fleeing the scene then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the eiffel tower is not in paris, hence no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, hence a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id. | If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | modus ponen | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, hence a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then laura's wedding ring is missing, and laura's wedding ring is not missing, which shows that the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect. | If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then laura's wedding ring is missing | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | Laura's wedding ring is missing | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then laura's wedding ring is missing, and laura's wedding ring is not missing, which shows that the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, which establishes that no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder. | If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | modus tollen | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, which establishes that no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace, which implies that a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing. | If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | modus tollen | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace, which implies that a forensic expert did not find 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 witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the baby is crying in the car, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, so it can be concluded that the baby is crying in the car. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the baby is crying in the car | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The baby is crying in the car | modus ponen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The baby is crying in the car | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The baby is not crying in the car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the baby is crying in the car, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, so it can be concluded that the baby is crying in the 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 a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, thus a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine. | If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | modus tollen | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, thus 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|>
|
Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, since if officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail. | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | modus tollen | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | 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: ```Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, since if officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail and the victim had not 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 cat is sleeping on the couch then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which establishes that the cat is not sleeping on the couch. | If the cat is sleeping on the couch then the book is written by a famous author | The book is not written by a famous author | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping on the couch | The book is written by a famous author | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping on the couch then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which establishes that the cat is not 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 dog is barking, since if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the dog is barking and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder. | If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the dog is barking | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The dog is barking | modus ponen | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The dog is barking | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | 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 victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the dog is barking and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, hence the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | modus ponen | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, hence the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, which establishes that the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder. | If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | modus ponen | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, which establishes that the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura had not installed a home security system, because if laura had installed a home security system then the book is on the bestseller list and the book is not on the bestseller list. | If laura had installed a home security system then the book is on the bestseller list | The book is not on the bestseller list | Laura had not installed a home security system | modus tollen | Laura had installed a home security system | The book is on the bestseller list | Laura had not installed a home security system | The book is not on the bestseller list | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura had not installed a home security system, because if laura had installed a home security system then the book is on the bestseller list and the book is not on the bestseller list.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, because if the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery and emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery. | If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, because if the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery and emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If paris is in france then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, and paris is in france, so a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard. | If paris is in france then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | Paris is in france | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | modus ponen | Paris is in France | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | Paris is not in France | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If paris is in france then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, and paris is in france, so a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their 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 footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the book is a romance novel, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, therefore the book is a romance novel. | If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the book is a romance novel | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | The book is a romance novel | modus ponen | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | The book is a romance novel | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | The book is not a romance novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the book is a romance novel, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, therefore the book is 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|>
|
Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, because if laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway. | If laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | modus ponen | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, because if laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident and laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway.```<|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 suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, and the sun is shining, so it can be concluded that the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim. | If the sun is shining then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The sun is shining | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | modus ponen | The sun is shining | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The sun is not shining | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, and the sun is shining, so it can be concluded that the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms, which implies that laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats. | If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms | John davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | modus tollen | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | 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 laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms, which implies that laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then water is h2o, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, thus water is h2o. | If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then water is h2o | Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | Water is H2O | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | Water is H2O | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | Water is not H2O | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then water is h2o, and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, thus water is h2o.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the movie is a family film, and the movie is not a family film, thus detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse. | If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the movie is a family film | The movie is not a family film | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | modus tollen | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | The movie is a family film | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | The movie is not a family film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the movie is a family film, and the movie is not a family film, thus 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 sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then laura's wedding ring is missing, and laura's wedding ring is not missing, hence sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily. | If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then laura's wedding ring is missing | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | modus tollen | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | Laura's wedding ring is missing | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then laura's wedding ring is missing, and laura's wedding ring is not missing, hence sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then the book is a mystery novel, and the book is not a mystery novel, which implies that a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house. | If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then the book is a mystery novel | The book is not a mystery novel | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | The book is a mystery novel | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | 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 a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then the book is a mystery novel, and the book is not a mystery novel, which implies that 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|>
|
If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop, hence laura's dog was not found locked in a closet. | If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | modus tollen | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop, hence laura's dog was not found locked in a closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, so it can be concluded that laura's prescription medications were stolen. | If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then laura's prescription medications were stolen | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | modus ponen | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, so it can be concluded that laura's prescription medications were stolen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and the book is written by a famous author, which implies that the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker. | If the book is written by a famous author then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The book is written by a famous author | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | modus ponen | The book is written by a famous author | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The book is not written by a famous author | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and the book is written by a famous author, which implies that the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, which implies that laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions. | If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | modus tollen | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, which implies that laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a sports film then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, and no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, so it can be concluded that the movie is not a sports film. | If the movie is a sports film then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | The movie is not a sports film | modus tollen | The movie is a sports film | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | The movie is not a sports film | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a sports film then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, and no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, so it can be concluded that the movie is not a sports film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings, because if a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle. | If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | modus tollen | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings, because if a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, since if laura had recently changed her social media passwords then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal. | If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | modus tollen | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | 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: ```Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, since if laura had recently changed her social media passwords 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|>
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, since if a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow. | If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | A note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | modus ponen | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, since if a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is sleeping then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, therefore the baby is not sleeping. | If the baby is sleeping then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | The baby is not sleeping | modus tollen | The baby is sleeping | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | The baby is not sleeping | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is sleeping then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, therefore the baby is not sleeping.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, and emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, thus no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet. | If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder | Emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | modus tollen | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, and emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, thus no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, so it can be concluded that a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | modus ponen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, so it can be concluded that a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, which implies that the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact. | If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | modus ponen | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, which implies that the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a romance novel then the water is warm, and the water is not warm, therefore the book is not a romance novel. | If the book is a romance novel then the water is warm | The water is not warm | The book is not a romance novel | modus tollen | The book is a romance novel | The water is warm | The book is not a romance novel | The water is not warm | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a romance novel then the water is warm, and the water is not warm, therefore the book is not a romance novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the movie is a thriller, and the movie is not a thriller, hence surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the movie is a thriller | The movie is not a thriller | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | modus tollen | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The movie is a thriller | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The movie is not a thriller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the movie is a thriller, and the movie is not a thriller, hence surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, because if a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement and detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement. | If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | Detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, because if a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement and detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the baby is crawling towards the door, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, which establishes that the baby is crawling towards the door. | If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the baby is crawling towards the door | The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The baby is crawling towards the door | modus ponen | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The baby is crawling towards the door | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | The baby is not crawling towards the door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the baby is crawling towards the door, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, which establishes that the baby is crawling towards the door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's house was booby-trapped then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and laura's house was booby-trapped, hence emily had recently taken a self-defense course. | If laura's house was booby-trapped then emily had recently taken a self-defense course | Laura's house was booby-trapped | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | modus ponen | Laura's house was booby-trapped | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's house was booby-trapped then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and laura's house was booby-trapped, hence emily had recently taken a self-defense course.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, as if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary and the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary. | If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | modus tollen | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | 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: ```A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, as if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary and the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, hence a stolen car was reported near the crime scene. | If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | modus ponen | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, hence a stolen car was reported near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, thus no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene. | If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | modus tollen | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, thus no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at 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|>
|
A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, since if detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects. | If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | modus ponen | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, since if detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, since if the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, since if the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, as if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway and no bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | modus tollen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was 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: ```Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, as if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway and no bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size 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 a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then a gas leak was detected in the basement, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, so it can be concluded that a gas leak was detected in the basement. | If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then a gas leak was detected in the basement | A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | A gas leak was detected in the basement | modus ponen | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | A gas leak was detected in the basement | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | A gas leak was not detected in the 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 local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then a gas leak was detected in the basement, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, so it can be concluded that a gas leak was detected in the basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the weather is mild and pleasant, and the weather is not mild and pleasant, hence richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles. | If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the weather is mild and pleasant | The weather is not mild and pleasant | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | modus tollen | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | The weather is mild and pleasant | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | The weather is not mild and pleasant | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the weather is mild and pleasant, and the weather is not mild and pleasant, hence richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the computer is on then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, so the computer is not on. | If the computer is on then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The computer is not on | modus tollen | The computer is on | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The computer is not on | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the computer is on then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, so the computer is not on.```<|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 stranger then the computer is on, and the computer is not on, which establishes that the dog is not barking at the stranger. | If the dog is barking at the stranger then the computer is on | The computer is not on | The dog is not barking at the stranger | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the stranger | The computer is on | The dog is not barking at the stranger | The computer is not on | 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 stranger then the computer is on, and the computer is not on, which establishes that the dog is not barking at the stranger.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, hence laura's phone records do not show calls to 911. | If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | modus tollen | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, hence laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had installed a home security system then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, and the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data, which implies that laura had not installed a home security system. | If laura had installed a home security system then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | Laura had not installed a home security system | modus tollen | Laura had installed a home security system | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | Laura had not installed a home security system | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had installed a home security system then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, and the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data, which implies that laura had not installed a home security system.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the computer is on then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and the computer is on, so a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park. | If the computer is on then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The computer is on | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | modus ponen | The computer is on | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The computer is not on | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the computer is on then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and the computer is on, so a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, therefore surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery. | If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, therefore surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, as if the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house and the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror. | If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | modus ponen | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | 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 suspicious van parked near sarah's house, as if the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house and the cat is grooming itself in front of the 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 the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, thus the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary. | If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | modus tollen | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, thus the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the apple is red then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, therefore the apple is not red. | If the apple is red then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | The apple is not red | modus tollen | The apple is red | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | The apple is not red | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the apple is red then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, therefore the apple is not red.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, since if the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the weather is cold and snowy and the weather is not cold and snowy. | If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the weather is cold and snowy | The weather is not cold and snowy | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | modus tollen | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The weather is cold and snowy | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | The weather is not cold and snowy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, since if the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the weather is cold and snowy and the weather is not cold and snowy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the football is round, and the football is not round, which establishes that no 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 the football is round | The football is not round | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | modus tollen | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The football is round | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The football is not round | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the football is round, and the football is not round, which establishes that no 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 bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door, since if a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the dog is barking at the dog next door and the dog is not barking at the dog next door. | If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the dog is barking at the dog next door | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | modus tollen | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | The dog is barking at the dog next door | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door, since if a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the dog is barking at the dog next door and the dog is not barking at the dog next door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the stroller then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the baby is crying in the stroller, which establishes that the stolen van was registered in a fake name. | If the baby is crying in the stroller then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | The baby is crying in the stroller | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | modus ponen | The baby is crying in the stroller | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The baby is not crying in the stroller | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying in the stroller then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the baby is crying in the stroller, which establishes that the stolen van was registered in a fake name.```<|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 the apple is red, and the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, so it can be concluded that the apple is red. | If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then the apple is red | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The apple is red | modus ponen | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The apple is red | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | The apple is not red | 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 the apple is red, and the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, so it can be concluded that the apple is red.```<|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 the movie is a science fiction film, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, thus the movie is a science fiction film. | If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the movie is a science fiction film | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The movie is a science fiction film | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The movie is a science fiction film | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The movie is not a science fiction 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 suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the movie is a science fiction film, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, thus the movie is a science fiction 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 john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, which shows that john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape. | If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | modus tollen | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, which shows that john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, hence the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim. | If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the baby is teething on a toy | The baby is not teething on a toy | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The baby is teething on a toy | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The baby is not teething on a toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, hence the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly overhead then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, which establishes that the sun is not shining brightly overhead. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead then laura's dog was found locked in a closet | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly overhead then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, which establishes that the sun is not 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 detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the sun is shining brightly, and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, so it can be concluded that the sun is shining brightly. | If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the sun is shining brightly | Detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter | The sun is shining brightly | modus ponen | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | The sun is shining brightly | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | The sun is not shining brightly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the sun is shining brightly, and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, so it can be concluded that the sun is shining brightly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the cat is sleeping in the sun, and the cat is not sleeping in the sun, which shows that emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask. | If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the cat is sleeping in the sun | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | modus tollen | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The cat is sleeping in the sun | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then the cat is sleeping in the sun, and the cat is not sleeping in the sun, which shows that emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is not shining through the window, since if the sun is shining through the window then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect. | If the sun is shining through the window then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | The sun is not shining through the window | modus tollen | The sun is shining through the window | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The sun is not shining through the window | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not shining through the window, since if the sun is shining through the window then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the movie is a horror film, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, hence the movie is a horror film. | If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the movie is a horror film | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The movie is a horror film | modus ponen | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The movie is a horror film | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The movie is not a horror film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the movie is a horror film, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, hence 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 sun is shining brightly in the sky then the movie is a musical film, and the sun is shining brightly in the sky, thus the movie is a musical film. | If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the movie is a musical film | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | The movie is a musical film | modus ponen | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | The movie is a musical film | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | 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 sun is shining brightly in the sky then the movie is a musical film, and the sun is shining brightly in the sky, thus the movie is a musical 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 laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the book is on the nightstand, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, which establishes that the book is on the nightstand. | If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the book is on the nightstand | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The book is on the nightstand | modus ponen | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The book is on the nightstand | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | The book is not on the nightstand | 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 friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the book is on the nightstand, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, which establishes that the book is on the nightstand.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, so a fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect. | If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then the cat is grooming itself | The cat is not grooming itself | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | modus tollen | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | The cat is grooming itself | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | The cat is not grooming itself | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, so a fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, since if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then water is h2o and water is not h2o. | If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then water is h2o | Water is not h2o | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | modus tollen | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Water is H2O | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | Water is not H2O | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, since if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then water is h2o and water is not h2o.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a family film then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, and the movie is a family film, which shows that a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence. | If the movie is a family film then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | The movie is a family film | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | modus ponen | The movie is a family film | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | The movie is not a family film | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a family film then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, and the movie is a family film, which shows that a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, since if john davis had a history of identity theft then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster and john davis had a history of identity theft. | If john davis had a history of identity theft then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | John davis had a history of identity theft | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of identity theft | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, since if john davis had a history of identity theft then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster and john davis had a history of identity theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the movie is a musical film, and the movie is not a musical film, therefore emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate. | If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the movie is a musical film | The movie is not a musical film | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | modus tollen | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The movie is a musical film | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | 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 emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the movie is a musical film, and the movie is not a musical film, therefore emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate.```<|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.