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 security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the cat is sleeping soundly, and the cat is not sleeping soundly, so it can be concluded that a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene. | If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the cat is sleeping soundly | The cat is not sleeping soundly | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The cat is sleeping soundly | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The cat is not sleeping soundly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the cat is sleeping soundly, and the cat is not sleeping soundly, so it can be concluded that a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with toys then the movie is a drama, and the movie is not a drama, hence the baby is not playing with toys. | If the baby is playing with toys then the movie is a drama | The movie is not a drama | The baby is not playing with toys | modus tollen | The baby is playing with toys | The movie is a drama | The baby is not playing with toys | The movie is not a drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with toys then the movie is a drama, and the movie is not a drama, hence the baby is not playing with toys.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, which establishes that a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned. | If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then officer brown discovered a hidden basement | Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | modus tollen | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | 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 shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, which establishes that a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, 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 a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat | A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat | 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 | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | 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 a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, 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|>
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, therefore the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information. | If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | modus tollen | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, therefore the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a biography then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, thus the book is not a biography. | If the book is a biography then the baby is teething on a toy | The baby is not teething on a toy | The book is not a biography | modus tollen | The book is a biography | The baby is teething on a toy | The book is not a biography | 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 book is a biography then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, thus the book is not a biography.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, which establishes that john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape. | If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | modus ponen | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, which establishes that john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, and detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, which establishes that a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene. | If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | Detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | modus tollen | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, and detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, which establishes that a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is nice then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and laura's prescription medications were not stolen, which implies that the weather is not nice. | If the weather is nice then laura's prescription medications were stolen | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | The weather is not nice | modus tollen | The weather is nice | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | The weather is not nice | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is nice then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and laura's prescription medications were not stolen, which implies that the weather is not nice.```<|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 book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, so 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 book is written by a famous author | The book is not written by a famous author | 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 book is written by a famous author | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | 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 victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, so 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 a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which implies that no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house. | If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which implies that no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, therefore a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction. | If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction | A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | modus ponen | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | 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 a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, therefore 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|>
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake and a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | modus tollen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake and a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky, since if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the dog is barking at the mail truck and the dog is not barking at the mail truck. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the dog is barking at the mail truck | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The dog is barking at the mail truck | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not setting slowly in the sky, since if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the dog is barking at the mail truck and the dog is not barking at the mail truck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had a restraining order against the suspect, since if john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe. | If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect | John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | modus ponen | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | 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 victim had a restraining order against the suspect, since if john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe.```<|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 cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, so it can be concluded that a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | modus ponen | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, so it can be concluded that a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, which establishes that surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store. | If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | modus ponen | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, which establishes that surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, because if the arson occurred on elm street then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard and the arson occurred on elm street. | If the arson occurred on elm street then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The arson occurred on elm street | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | modus ponen | The arson occurred on Elm Street | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, because if the arson occurred on elm street then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard and the arson occurred on elm street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sky is blue then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and the sky is blue, so it can be concluded that the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment. | If the sky is blue then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The sky is blue | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | modus ponen | The sky is blue | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The sky is not blue | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sky is blue then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and the sky is blue, so it can be concluded that the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, so the weather is not mild and pleasant. | If the weather is mild and pleasant then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | The weather is not mild and pleasant | modus tollen | The weather is mild and pleasant | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | The weather is not mild and pleasant | 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 weather is mild and pleasant then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, so the weather is not mild and pleasant.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, so it can be concluded that sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house. | If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | modus ponen | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, so it can be concluded that sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman 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 dog is not barking at the mailman. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then laura's dog was found locked in a closet | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | The dog is not barking at the mailman | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mailman | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | The dog is not barking at the mailman | 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 dog is barking at the mailman 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 dog is not barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is parked on the street then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the eiffel tower is not in paris, so the car is not parked on the street. | If the car is parked on the street then the eiffel tower is in paris | The eiffel tower is not in paris | The car is not parked on the street | modus tollen | The car is parked on the street | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | The car is not parked on the street | 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 the car is parked on the street then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the eiffel tower is not in paris, so the car is not parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the dog is barking loudly, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, thus the dog is barking loudly. | If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the dog is barking loudly | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The dog is barking loudly | modus ponen | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The dog is barking loudly | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The dog is not barking loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the dog is barking loudly, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, thus the dog is barking loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and the baby is not crawling towards the toy, so it can be concluded that officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene. | If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the baby is crawling towards the toy | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | modus tollen | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The baby is crawling towards the toy | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and the baby is not crawling towards the toy, so it can be concluded that officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, hence the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder. | If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | modus ponen | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, hence the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, therefore a witness heard screams coming from laura's house. | If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house | A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | modus ponen | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, therefore a witness heard screams coming from laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a comedy, as if the movie is a comedy then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery. | If the movie is a comedy then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | The movie is not a comedy | modus tollen | The movie is a comedy | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | The movie is not a comedy | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a comedy, as if the movie is a comedy then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, so it can be concluded that no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder. | If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | modus tollen | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, so it can be concluded that no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had installed a home security system then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura had installed a home security system, which implies that laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway. | If laura had installed a home security system then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | Laura had installed a home security system | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | modus ponen | Laura had installed a home security system | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | Laura had not installed a home security system | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had installed a home security system then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura had installed a home security system, which implies that 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 a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, which implies that no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house. | If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, which implies that no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is drinking from a bottle then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, and detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, which implies that the baby is not drinking from a bottle. | If the baby is drinking from a bottle then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter | Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | modus tollen | The baby is drinking from a bottle | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is drinking from a bottle then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, and detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, which implies that the baby is not drinking from a bottle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, which shows that sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house. | If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | modus tollen | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, which shows that sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, so john davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck. | If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | modus tollen | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, so john davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, so it can be concluded that laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident. | If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | modus tollen | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, so it can be concluded that laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, as if john davis had a secret storage unit then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate and john davis had a secret storage unit. | If john davis had a secret storage unit then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | John davis had a secret storage unit | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | modus ponen | John Davis had a secret storage unit | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, as if john davis had a secret storage unit then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate and john davis had a secret storage unit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, as if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the tree is shedding leaves and the tree is not shedding leaves. | If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the tree is shedding leaves | The tree is not shedding leaves | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | modus tollen | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | The tree is shedding leaves | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | The tree is not shedding leaves | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, as if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the tree is shedding leaves and the tree is not shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If cats are mammals then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and cats are mammals, so laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats. | If cats are mammals then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | Cats are mammals | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | modus ponen | Cats are mammals | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | Cats are not mammals | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If cats are mammals then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and cats are mammals, so laura's family reported 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|>
|
No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, as if a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then laura's wedding ring is missing and laura's wedding ring is not missing. | If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then laura's wedding ring is missing | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | modus tollen | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | Laura's wedding ring is missing | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | 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: ```No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, as if a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then laura's wedding ring is missing and laura's wedding ring is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then a shattered vase was found in the hallway, and a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, which establishes that a shattered vase was found in the hallway. | If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then a shattered vase was found in the hallway | A bloody shirt was found in john davis's car | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | modus ponen | A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then a shattered vase was found in the hallway, and a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, which establishes that a shattered vase was found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the movie is a family film, and the movie is not a family film, which establishes that a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment. | If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the movie is a family film | The movie is not a family film | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | modus tollen | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | The movie is a family film | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | 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 a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the movie is a family film, and the movie is not a family film, which establishes that a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, and a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, hence the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon. | If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, and a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, hence the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, thus a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby. | If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, thus a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a collection of short stories then laura's wedding ring is missing, and the book is a collection of short stories, which implies that laura's wedding ring is missing. | If the book is a collection of short stories then laura's wedding ring is missing | The book is a collection of short stories | Laura's wedding ring is missing | modus ponen | The book is a collection of short stories | Laura's wedding ring is missing | The book is not a collection of short stories | 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 book is a collection of short stories then laura's wedding ring is missing, and the book is a collection of short stories, which implies that laura's wedding ring is missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, because if sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder and no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder. | If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | modus tollen | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | 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: ```Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, because if sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder and no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly overhead then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, which implies that the sun is not shining brightly overhead. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | 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 the sun is shining brightly overhead then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, which implies 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 the cat is grooming itself then the baby is playing with a toy car, and the cat is grooming itself, which establishes that the baby is playing with a toy car. | If the cat is grooming itself then the baby is playing with a toy car | The cat is grooming itself | The baby is playing with a toy car | modus ponen | The cat is grooming itself | The baby is playing with a toy car | The cat is not grooming itself | The baby is not playing with a toy car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is grooming itself then the baby is playing with a toy car, and the cat is grooming itself, which establishes that the baby is playing with a toy car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the baby is laughing at the toy, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, which shows that the baby is laughing at the toy. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the baby is laughing at the toy | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The baby is laughing at the toy | modus ponen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The baby is laughing at the toy | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | The baby is not laughing at the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the baby is laughing at the toy, and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, which shows that the baby is laughing at the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If dogs are not fish then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, so dogs are fish. | If dogs are not fish then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | Detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | Dogs are fish | modus tollen | Dogs are not fish | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | Dogs are fish | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If dogs are not fish then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, so dogs are fish.```<|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 note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, hence emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder. | If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | A note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | modus ponen | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, hence emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument 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|>
|
The cat is sleeping soundly, as if sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then the cat is sleeping soundly and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily. | If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then the cat is sleeping soundly | Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | The cat is sleeping soundly | modus ponen | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | The cat is sleeping soundly | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | The cat is not sleeping soundly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is sleeping soundly, as if sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then the cat is sleeping soundly and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, therefore john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone. | If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | John davis had a cache of illegal firearms | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | modus ponen | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, therefore john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, thus no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | modus tollen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, thus no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a history of stalking laura, since if sally is older than john then john davis had a history of stalking laura and sally is older than john. | If sally is older than john then john davis had a history of stalking laura | Sally is older than john | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | modus ponen | Sally is older than John | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | Sally is not older than John | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a history of stalking laura, since if sally is older than john then john davis had a history of stalking laura and sally is older than john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, as if a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the movie is a science fiction film and the movie is not a science fiction film. | If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the movie is a science fiction film | The movie is not a science fiction film | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus tollen | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | The movie is a science fiction film | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | 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: ```No homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, as if a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the movie is a science fiction film and the movie is not 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|>
|
The water is warm, since if a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then the water is warm and a strand of hair was found at the crime scene. | If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then the water is warm | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The water is warm | modus ponen | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The water is warm | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | The water is not warm | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The water is warm, since if a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then the water is warm and a strand of hair was 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|>
|
A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, because if a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the baby is teething on a toy and the baby is not teething on a toy. | If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the baby is teething on a toy | The baby is not teething on a toy | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | modus tollen | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | The baby is teething on a toy | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | 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: ```A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, because if a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the baby is teething on a toy and the baby is not teething on a toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not crawling, because if the baby is crawling then the baby is sleeping and the baby is not sleeping. | If the baby is crawling then the baby is sleeping | The baby is not sleeping | The baby is not crawling | modus tollen | The baby is crawling | The baby is sleeping | The baby is not crawling | The baby is not sleeping | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not crawling, because if the baby is crawling then the baby is sleeping and 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 the movie is a documentary then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, and the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, so the movie is not a documentary. | If the movie is a documentary then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The movie is not a documentary | modus tollen | The movie is a documentary | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The movie is not a documentary | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a documentary then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, and the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, so the movie is not a documentary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then john davis had a history of financial problems, and the victim's name is sarah mitchell, therefore john davis had a history of financial problems. | If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then john davis had a history of financial problems | The victim's name is sarah mitchell | John Davis had a history of financial problems | modus ponen | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | John Davis had a history of financial problems | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then john davis had a history of financial problems, and the victim's name is sarah mitchell, therefore john davis had a history of financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If cats are mammals then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and cats are mammals, thus john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape. | If cats are mammals then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | Cats are mammals | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | modus ponen | Cats are mammals | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | Cats are not mammals | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If cats are mammals then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and cats are mammals, thus john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, which establishes that laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization. | If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | modus tollen | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, which establishes that laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, so it can be concluded that officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene. | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | modus tollen | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, so it can be concluded that officer smith did not find a broken window 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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a gas leak was detected in the basement, and a gas leak was not detected in the basement, hence officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store. | If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a gas leak was detected in the basement | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | modus tollen | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | A gas leak was detected in the basement | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | 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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a gas leak was detected in the basement, and a gas leak was not detected in the basement, hence officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the baby is teething on a toy, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, so it can be concluded that the baby is teething on a toy. | If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the baby is teething on a toy | Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | The baby is teething on a toy | modus ponen | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | The baby is teething on a toy | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | 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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the baby is teething on a toy, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, so it can be concluded that the baby is teething on a toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the building, which implies that 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 a security camera captured the suspect entering the building | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | 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 | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | 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 a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the building, which implies that surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, hence a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car. | If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | modus tollen | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | 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 neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, hence a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, hence laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident. | If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | modus tollen | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | 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 laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, hence laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, which implies that laura's medical records were accessed without authorization. | If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | modus ponen | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, which implies that laura's medical records were accessed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If cats are mammals then the baby is laughing at the toy, and cats are mammals, which implies that the baby is laughing at the toy. | If cats are mammals then the baby is laughing at the toy | Cats are mammals | The baby is laughing at the toy | modus ponen | Cats are mammals | The baby is laughing at the toy | Cats are not mammals | The baby is not laughing at the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If cats are mammals then the baby is laughing at the toy, and cats are mammals, which implies that the baby is laughing at the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying loudly then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, hence the baby is not crying loudly. | If the baby is crying loudly then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | The baby is not crying loudly | modus tollen | The baby is crying loudly | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The baby is not crying loudly | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying loudly then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, hence the baby is not crying loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The murder weapon was not a baseball bat, as if the murder weapon was a baseball bat 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. | If the murder weapon was a baseball bat 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 murder weapon was not a baseball bat | modus tollen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | 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: ```The murder weapon was not a baseball bat, as if the murder weapon was a baseball bat 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.```<|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 sky is blue, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, hence the sky is blue. | If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the sky is blue | Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles | The sky is blue | modus ponen | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | The sky is blue | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | The sky is not blue | 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 sky is blue, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, hence the sky is blue.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, therefore emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask. | If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | modus ponen | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, therefore emily was 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|>
|
If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, which establishes that a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard. | If a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | modus ponen | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | 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 a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, which establishes that 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 the weather is cold and rainy then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and the weather is cold and rainy, therefore detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom. | If the weather is cold and rainy then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | The weather is cold and rainy | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | modus ponen | The weather is cold and rainy | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The weather is not cold and rainy | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and rainy then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and the weather is cold and rainy, therefore detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, which implies that a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus ponen | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, which implies that a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, therefore the dog is barking at the mailman. | If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the dog is barking at the mailman | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | The dog is barking at the mailman | modus ponen | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | The dog is barking at the mailman | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | The dog is not barking at the mailman | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, therefore the dog is barking at the mailman.```<|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 footprint was found in the living room, since if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession. | If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then a bloody footprint was found in the living room | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus ponen | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | 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: ```A bloody footprint was found in the living room, since if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cloudy and rainy then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and the weather is cloudy and rainy, hence a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public. | If the weather is cloudy and rainy then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | The weather is cloudy and rainy | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | modus ponen | The weather is cloudy and rainy | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cloudy and rainy then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and the weather is cloudy and rainy, hence a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, which implies that the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause. | If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | modus ponen | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, which implies that the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, because if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the sun is shining brightly in the sky and the sun is not shining brightly in the sky. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the sun is shining brightly in the sky | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, because if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the sun is shining brightly in the sky and the sun is not shining brightly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, which implies that a neighbor heard a gunshot. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then a neighbor heard a gunshot | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | A neighbor heard a gunshot | modus ponen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | A neighbor heard a gunshot | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, which implies that a neighbor heard a gunshot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had not recently purchased a firearm, as if john davis had recently purchased a firearm then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily and a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily. | If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | modus tollen | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had not recently purchased a firearm, as if john davis had recently purchased a firearm then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily and 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|>
|
It is not raining today, as if it is raining today then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house and no witness heard screams coming from laura's house. | If it is raining today then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house | No witness heard screams coming from laura's house | It is not raining today | modus tollen | It is raining today | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | It is not raining today | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```It is not raining today, as if it is raining today then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house and no witness heard screams coming from 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|>
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, because if john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders. | If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | John davis had a history of violating restraining orders | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, because if john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, and the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation, which establishes that the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, and the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation, which establishes that the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the sun is shining through the window, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, hence the sun is shining through the window. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the sun is shining through the window | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The sun is shining through the window | modus ponen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The sun is shining through the window | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The sun is not shining through the window | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the sun is shining through the window, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, hence the sun is shining through the window.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, hence a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | modus ponen | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | 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 a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, hence a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is shedding leaves then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, so the tree is not shedding leaves. | If the tree is shedding leaves then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The tree is not shedding leaves | modus tollen | The tree is shedding leaves | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The tree is not shedding leaves | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is shedding leaves then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, so the tree is not shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, since if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the phone is ringing and the phone is not ringing. | If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the phone is ringing | The phone is not ringing | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | modus tollen | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The phone is ringing | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | The phone is not ringing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, since if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the phone is ringing and the phone is not ringing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, so a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene. | If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | modus ponen | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, so a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is a family film, since if the car is a hybrid then the movie is a family film and the car is a hybrid. | If the car is a hybrid then the movie is a family film | The car is a hybrid | The movie is a family film | modus ponen | The car is a hybrid | The movie is a family film | The car is not a hybrid | 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: ```The movie is a family film, since if the car is a hybrid then the movie is a family film and the car is a hybrid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain, because if the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain 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. | If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | modus tollen | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | 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: ```The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain, because if the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the cat is grooming itself, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, so the cat is grooming itself. | If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the cat is grooming itself | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The cat is grooming itself | modus ponen | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The cat is grooming itself | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | 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 the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the cat is grooming itself, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, so the cat is grooming itself.```<|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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, because if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then cats are mammals and cats are not mammals. | If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then cats are mammals | Cats are not mammals | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | modus tollen | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | Cats are mammals | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | Cats are not mammals | 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, because if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then cats are mammals and cats are not mammals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, since if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon and the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon. | If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | modus tollen | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, since if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon and the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is hot and humid then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and the weather is hot and humid, so it can be concluded that the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage. | If the weather is hot and humid then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | The weather is hot and humid | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | modus ponen | The weather is hot and humid | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | The weather is not hot and humid | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is hot and humid then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and the weather is hot and humid, so it can be concluded that the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the car is a sedan, and the car is not a sedan, which implies that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the car is a sedan | The car is not a sedan | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | modus tollen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The car is a sedan | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The car is not a sedan | 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 arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the car is a sedan, and the car is not a sedan, which implies that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day 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 detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the cat is purring, and the cat is not purring, therefore detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park. | If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the cat is purring | The cat is not purring | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | modus tollen | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The cat is purring | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The cat is not purring | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the cat is purring, and the cat is not purring, therefore detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.