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 emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, hence a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession. | If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | modus ponen | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, hence a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily'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 a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, thus a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus ponen | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, thus a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a science fiction film then the movie is a thriller, and the movie is a science fiction film, thus the movie is a thriller. | If the movie is a science fiction film then the movie is a thriller | The movie is a science fiction film | The movie is a thriller | modus ponen | The movie is a science fiction film | The movie is a thriller | The movie is not a science fiction film | The movie is not a thriller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a science fiction film then the movie is a thriller, and the movie is a science fiction film, thus the movie is a thriller.```<|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 laughing at the toy, since if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the baby is laughing at the toy and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization. | If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the baby is laughing at the toy | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | The baby is laughing at the toy | modus ponen | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | The baby is laughing at the toy | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | 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: ```The baby is laughing at the toy, since if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the baby is laughing at the toy and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have bruises on his arms, because if john davis had bruises on his arms then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently and laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently. | If john davis had bruises on his arms then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | modus tollen | John Davis had bruises on his arms | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have bruises on his arms, because if john davis had bruises on his arms then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently and laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, therefore the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary. | If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, therefore the victim's will had been recently 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|>
|
The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, as if laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization. | If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | modus ponen | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, as if laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim and 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 the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, which establishes that richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions. | If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | modus ponen | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, which establishes that richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, since if the dog is barking at the dog next door then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway and the dog is barking at the dog next door. | If the dog is barking at the dog next door then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | The dog is barking at the dog next door | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the dog next door | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | 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: ```Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, since if the dog is barking at the dog next door then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway and the dog is barking at the dog next door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, so john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape. | If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | modus ponen | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, so 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|>
|
The dog is happy, as if laura's prescription medications were stolen then the dog is happy and laura's prescription medications were stolen. | If laura's prescription medications were stolen then the dog is happy | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | The dog is happy | modus ponen | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | The dog is happy | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | The dog is not happy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is happy, as if laura's prescription medications were stolen then the dog is happy and laura's prescription medications were stolen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer, so the sun is not shining brightly in the sky. | If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer, so 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 the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and laura's prescription medications were not stolen, so it can be concluded that 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 laura's prescription medications were stolen | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | 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 | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | 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 victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and laura's prescription medications were not stolen, so it can be concluded that 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|>
|
The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard, as if the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the baby is crawling towards the toy and the baby is not crawling towards the toy. | If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the baby is crawling towards the toy | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | modus tollen | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard, as if the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the baby is crawling towards the toy and the baby is not crawling towards the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, as if the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary. | If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | modus ponen | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, as if the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a musical film then the book is written by a famous author, and the movie is a musical film, so the book is written by a famous author. | If the movie is a musical film then the book is written by a famous author | The movie is a musical film | The book is written by a famous author | modus ponen | The movie is a musical film | The book is written by a famous author | The movie is not a musical film | 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 movie is a musical film then the book is written by a famous author, and the movie is a musical film, so the book is written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, and a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, which establishes that the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery. | If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | modus tollen | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, and a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, which establishes that the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, which shows that a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house. | If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | modus ponen | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around 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 had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, which shows that a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the door then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, which shows that the baby is not crawling towards the door. | If the baby is crawling towards the door then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The baby is not crawling towards the door | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the door | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The baby is not crawling towards the door | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the door then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, which shows that the baby is not crawling towards the door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which establishes that sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the book is written by a famous author | The book is not written by a famous author | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | modus tollen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | The book is written by a famous author | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | 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 sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which establishes that sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, because if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene. | If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | modus tollen | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | 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: ```Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, because if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the book is on the bestseller list, and the book is not on the bestseller list, which implies that footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store. | If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the book is on the bestseller list | The book is not on the bestseller list | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | modus tollen | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | The book is on the bestseller list | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | The book is not on the bestseller list | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the book is on the bestseller list, and the book is not on the bestseller list, which implies that footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, therefore laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions. | If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | modus tollen | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, therefore laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, because if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | modus ponen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | 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: ```Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, because if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data, therefore the baby is not crawling towards the toy. | If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data, therefore the baby is not crawling towards the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account, which establishes that a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard. | If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | Richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | modus tollen | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account, which establishes that a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, since if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then john davis had a history of stalking laura and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then john davis had a history of stalking laura | John davis did not have a history of stalking laura | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | modus tollen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | 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: ```No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, since if a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then john davis had a history of stalking laura and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura.```<|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 playing with a toy car, since if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the baby is playing with a toy car and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft. | If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the baby is playing with a toy car | Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | The baby is playing with a toy car | modus ponen | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | The baby is playing with a toy car | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | The baby is not playing with a toy car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is playing with a toy car, since if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the baby is playing with a toy car and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, which implies that a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat. | If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat | A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | modus ponen | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | 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 a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, which implies that a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, thus a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned. | If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | modus tollen | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, thus a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the book is a bestseller, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, therefore the book is a bestseller. | If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the book is a bestseller | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The book is a bestseller | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The book is a bestseller | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | The book is not a bestseller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the book is a bestseller, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, therefore the book is a bestseller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking, since if the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the dog is barking and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m. | If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the dog is barking | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The dog is barking | modus ponen | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The dog is barking | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | The dog is not barking | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking, since if the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the dog is barking and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, since if john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop. | If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | modus tollen | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, since if john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, hence the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster. | If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | modus ponen | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, hence the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, thus laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone. | If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | modus ponen | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, thus laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, as if witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist. | If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | modus ponen | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, as if witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.```<|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 dogs are not fish, and dogs are fish, so it can be concluded that emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery. | If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then dogs are not fish | Dogs are fish | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | modus tollen | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | Dogs are not fish | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | Dogs are fish | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then dogs are not fish, and dogs are fish, so it can be concluded that emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a memoir then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo, which establishes that the book is not a memoir. | If the book is a memoir then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo | A homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo | The book is not a memoir | modus tollen | The book is a memoir | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | The book is not a memoir | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | 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 memoir then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo, which establishes that the book is not a memoir.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the dog is barking at the stranger, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, which implies that the dog is barking at the stranger. | If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the dog is barking at the stranger | A neighbor heard a gunshot | The dog is barking at the stranger | modus ponen | A neighbor heard a gunshot | The dog is barking at the stranger | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | The dog is not barking at the stranger | 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 heard a gunshot then the dog is barking at the stranger, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, which implies that the dog is barking at the stranger.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then laura's house was booby-trapped, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, thus laura's house was booby-trapped. | If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then laura's house was booby-trapped | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | Laura's house was booby-trapped | modus ponen | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | Laura's house was booby-trapped | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then laura's house was booby-trapped, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, thus laura's house was booby-trapped.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the dog is barking at the door, and the dog is not barking at the door, thus no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster. | If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the dog is barking at the door | The dog is not barking at the door | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | modus tollen | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The dog is barking at the door | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The dog is not barking at the door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the dog is barking at the door, and the dog is not barking at the door, thus no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is sleeping then the cat is black, and the cat is not black, which implies that the baby is not sleeping. | If the baby is sleeping then the cat is black | The cat is not black | The baby is not sleeping | modus tollen | The baby is sleeping | The cat is black | The baby is not sleeping | The cat is not black | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is sleeping then the cat is black, and the cat is not black, which implies that 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 baby is crying then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, hence the baby is not crying. | If the baby is crying then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The baby is not crying | modus tollen | The baby is crying | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The baby is not crying | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, hence the baby is not crying.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the stroller then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the baby is crying in the stroller, hence the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals. | If the baby is crying in the stroller then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The baby is crying in the stroller | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | modus ponen | The baby is crying in the stroller | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The baby is not crying in the stroller | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying in the stroller then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the baby is crying in the stroller, hence the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had a secret storage room in her house then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, so it can be concluded that laura did not have a secret storage room in her house. | If laura had a secret storage room in her house then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | modus tollen | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a secret storage room in her house then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, so it can be concluded that laura did not have a secret storage room in 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 the football is round 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, so it can be concluded that the football is not round. | If the football is round 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 | The football is not round | modus tollen | The football is round | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | The football is not round | 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: ```If the football is round 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, so it can be concluded that the football is not round.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a hybrid then the movie is a science fiction film, and the car is a hybrid, which shows that the movie is a science fiction film. | If the car is a hybrid then the movie is a science fiction film | The car is a hybrid | The movie is a science fiction film | modus ponen | The car is a hybrid | The movie is a science fiction film | The car is not a hybrid | The movie is not a science fiction film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a hybrid then the movie is a science fiction film, and the car is a hybrid, which shows that the movie is a science fiction film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, which shows that a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox. | If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | modus ponen | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, which shows that a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, so it can be concluded that the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. | If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | John davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt 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 john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, so it can be concluded that the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt 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|>
|
Water is not h2o, since if water is h2o then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace and a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace. | If water is h2o then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | Water is not H2O | modus tollen | Water is H2O | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | Water is not H2O | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Water is not h2o, since if water is h2o then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace and a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a hybrid then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, and the car is a hybrid, which implies that a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night. | If the car is a hybrid then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | The car is a hybrid | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | modus ponen | The car is a hybrid | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | The car is not a hybrid | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a hybrid then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, and the car is a hybrid, which implies that a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the table then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and the book is on the table, therefore a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If the book is on the table then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | The book is on the table | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus ponen | The book is on the table | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | The book is not on the table | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the table then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and the book is on the table, therefore 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 dog is barking then the movie is exciting, and the movie is not exciting, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking. | If the dog is barking then the movie is exciting | The movie is not exciting | The dog is not barking | modus tollen | The dog is barking | The movie is exciting | The dog is not barking | The movie is not exciting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking then the movie is exciting, and the movie is not exciting, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, and no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, hence a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop. | If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | modus tollen | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, and no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, hence a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, because if cats are mammals then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van and cats are mammals. | If cats are mammals then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | Cats are mammals | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | modus ponen | Cats are mammals | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | Cats are not mammals | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, because if cats are mammals then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van and cats are mammals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, which shows that laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal. | If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | modus ponen | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, which shows that laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, thus the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect. | If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | modus ponen | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, thus the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, which implies that the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors. | If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | modus ponen | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, which implies that the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the apple is red, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, hence the apple is red. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the apple is red | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | The apple is red | modus ponen | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | The apple is red | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | The apple is not red | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the apple is red, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, hence the apple is red.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which implies that the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime. | If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | modus tollen | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which implies that the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, hence surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | 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 | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, hence surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, as if laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | modus ponen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | 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: ```The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, as if laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911, as if laura's phone records show calls to 911 then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily. | If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | modus tollen | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911, as if laura's phone records show calls to 911 then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.```<|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 a history of confrontations with her co-workers, because if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store. | If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, because if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and the sun is not shining brightly in the sky, which implies that no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom. | If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the sun is shining brightly in the sky | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | modus tollen | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | 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: ```If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and the sun is not shining brightly in the sky, which implies that no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, which establishes that a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession. | If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | modus ponen | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, which establishes that a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily'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|>
|
A stolen car was reported near the crime scene, as if emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder. | If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | modus ponen | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | 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: ```A stolen car was reported near the crime scene, as if emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The eiffel tower is in paris, because if the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then the eiffel tower is in paris and the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery. | If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then the eiffel tower is in paris | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | modus ponen | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | 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: ```The eiffel tower is in paris, because if the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then the eiffel tower is in paris and the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have bruises on his arms. | If john davis had bruises on his arms then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | modus tollen | John Davis had bruises on his arms | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | 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 bruises on his arms then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have bruises on his arms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and laura's jewelry box was not emptied, so it can be concluded that a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags. | If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then laura's jewelry box was emptied | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | modus tollen | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and laura's jewelry box was not emptied, so it can be concluded that a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, therefore a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | modus tollen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, therefore a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the baby is crying in the car, and the baby is not crying in the car, hence officer brown did not discover a hidden basement. | If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the baby is crying in the car | The baby is not crying in the car | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | modus tollen | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | The baby is crying in the car | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | The baby is not crying in the car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the baby is crying in the car, and the baby is not crying in the car, hence officer brown did not discover a hidden basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the stranger then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, and emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, hence the dog is not barking at the stranger. | If the dog is barking at the stranger then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The dog is not barking at the stranger | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the stranger | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The dog is not barking at the stranger | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the stranger then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, and emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, hence the dog is not barking at the stranger.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not a romance novel, because if the book is a romance novel then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car and a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car. | If the book is a romance novel then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | The book is not a romance novel | modus tollen | The book is a romance novel | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | The book is not a romance novel | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not a romance novel, because if the book is a romance novel then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car and a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a collection of short stories then laura had installed a home security system, and the book is a collection of short stories, which shows that laura had installed a home security system. | If the book is a collection of short stories then laura had installed a home security system | The book is a collection of short stories | Laura had installed a home security system | modus ponen | The book is a collection of short stories | Laura had installed a home security system | The book is not a collection of short stories | Laura had not installed a home security system | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a collection of short stories then laura had installed a home security system, and the book is a collection of short stories, which shows that laura had installed a home security system.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, because if the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the pizza is hot and the pizza is not hot. | If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the pizza is hot | The pizza is not hot | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | modus tollen | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | The pizza is hot | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | The pizza is not hot | 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 social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, because if the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the pizza is hot and the pizza is not hot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the baby is not drinking from a bottle, thus detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse. | If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the baby is drinking from a bottle | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | modus tollen | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | The baby is drinking from a bottle | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the baby is not drinking from a bottle, thus detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A stolen car was reported near the crime scene, since if a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings. | If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene | A homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | modus ponen | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | 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: ```A stolen car was reported near the crime scene, since if a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene and a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire, since if the cat is sleeping in the sun then laura's car was found with a slashed tire and the cat is sleeping in the sun. | If the cat is sleeping in the sun then laura's car was found with a slashed tire | The cat is sleeping in the sun | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | modus ponen | The cat is sleeping in the sun | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's car was found with a slashed tire, since if the cat is sleeping in the sun then laura's car was found with a slashed tire and the cat is sleeping in the sun.```<|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 in front of the mirror then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, therefore surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery. | If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | modus ponen | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, therefore surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, since if a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house and surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house. | If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | modus tollen | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, since if a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house and surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the movie is a science fiction film, and the movie is not a science fiction film, thus forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing. | If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the movie is a science fiction film | The movie is not a science fiction film | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | modus tollen | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The movie is a science fiction film | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The movie is not a science fiction film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the movie is a science fiction film, and the movie is not a science fiction film, thus forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage, which shows that no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet. | If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | modus tollen | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | 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 a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage, which shows that no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a musical film then the dog is barking, and the dog is not barking, therefore the movie is not a musical film. | If the movie is a musical film then the dog is barking | The dog is not barking | The movie is not a musical film | modus tollen | The movie is a musical film | The dog is barking | The movie is not a musical film | The dog is not barking | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a musical film then the dog is barking, and the dog is not barking, therefore the movie is not a musical film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, since if the book is written by a famous author then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk and the book is written by a famous author. | If the book is written by a famous author then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The book is written by a famous author | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | modus ponen | The book is written by a famous author | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The book is not written by a famous author | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, since if the book is written by a famous author then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk and the book is written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, so it can be concluded that the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon. | If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | modus ponen | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | 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: ```If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, so it can be concluded that the suspect had 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 victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which implies that the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information. | If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | modus ponen | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which implies that the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, so it can be concluded that the victim's name is not sarah mitchell. | If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | No hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | modus tollen | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, so it can be concluded that the victim's name is not sarah mitchell.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine, since if a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then cats are mammals and cats are not mammals. | If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then cats are mammals | Cats are not mammals | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | modus tollen | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | Cats are mammals | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | 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: ```A threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine, since if a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine 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|>
|
If paris is in france then the weather is hot and humid, and paris is in france, so it can be concluded that the weather is hot and humid. | If paris is in france then the weather is hot and humid | Paris is in france | The weather is hot and humid | modus ponen | Paris is in France | The weather is hot and humid | Paris is not in France | The weather is not hot and humid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If paris is in france then the weather is hot and humid, and paris is in france, so it can be concluded that the weather is hot and humid.```<|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 a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, thus 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 a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | 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 | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | 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 the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, thus 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 the car is parked in the garage then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and the car is parked in the garage, so it can be concluded that laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van. | If the car is parked in the garage then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | The car is parked in the garage | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | modus ponen | The car is parked in the garage | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | The car is not parked in the garage | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | 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 in the garage then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and the car is parked in the garage, so it can be concluded that laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, hence a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | modus ponen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, hence a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, because if laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the suspect's name is john davis and the suspect's name is not john davis. | If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the suspect's name is john davis | The suspect's name is not john davis | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | modus tollen | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The suspect's name is John Davis | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | The suspect's name is not John Davis | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, because if laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the suspect's name is john davis and the suspect's name is not john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, which implies that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | modus tollen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, which implies that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is nice then john davis had a history of identity theft, and the weather is nice, thus john davis had a history of identity theft. | If the weather is nice then john davis had a history of identity theft | The weather is nice | John Davis had a history of identity theft | modus ponen | The weather is nice | John Davis had a history of identity theft | The weather is not nice | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is nice then john davis had a history of identity theft, and the weather is nice, thus john davis had a history of identity theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the dog is not barking at the neighbors, therefore the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it. | If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then the dog is barking at the neighbors | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | modus tollen | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | The dog is barking at the neighbors | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the dog is not barking at the neighbors, therefore the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A gas leak was not detected in the basement, since if a gas leak was detected in the basement then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster and no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster. | If a gas leak was detected in the basement then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | modus tollen | A gas leak was detected in the basement | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A gas leak was not detected in the basement, since if a gas leak was detected in the basement then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster and no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The bird is not singing, because if the bird is singing then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead and the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead. | If the bird is singing then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The bird is not singing | modus tollen | The bird is singing | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The bird is not singing | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The bird is not singing, because if the bird is singing then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead and the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, which establishes that the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country. | If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | modus ponen | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, which establishes that the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.```<|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.