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 the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the weather is mild and pleasant, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, hence the weather is mild and pleasant. | If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the weather is mild and pleasant | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | The weather is mild and pleasant | modus ponen | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | The weather is mild and pleasant | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | The weather is not mild and pleasant | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the weather is mild and pleasant, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, hence the weather is mild and pleasant.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sally is older than john then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and sally is older than john, so it can be concluded that john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape. | If sally is older than john then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | Sally is older than john | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | modus ponen | Sally is older than John | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | Sally is not older than John | 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 sally is older than john then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and sally is older than john, so it can be concluded that john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is happy, because if the sun is shining brightly then the dog is happy and the sun is shining brightly. | If the sun is shining brightly then the dog is happy | The sun is shining brightly | The dog is happy | modus ponen | The sun is shining brightly | The dog is happy | The sun is not shining brightly | 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, because if the sun is shining brightly then the dog is happy and the sun is shining brightly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the book is a biography, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, hence the book is a biography. | If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the book is a biography | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The book is a biography | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The book is a biography | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | The book is not a biography | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the book is a biography, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, hence the book is a biography.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, which shows that emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout. | If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | modus ponen | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, which shows that emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a gas leak was detected in the basement, and a gas leak was not detected in the basement, hence no security camera captured the suspect entering the building. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a gas leak was detected in the basement | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | modus tollen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | A gas leak was detected in the basement | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a gas leak was detected in the basement, and a gas leak was not detected in the basement, hence no security camera captured the suspect entering the building.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and laura's phone records show calls to 911, therefore a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public. | If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | modus ponen | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and laura's phone records show calls to 911, therefore a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, which establishes that sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house. | If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | modus ponen | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her 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 car keys were missing from their apartment then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, which establishes that sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's garage door was left open then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, which implies that laura's garage door was not left open. | If laura's garage door was left open then the cat is grooming itself | The cat is not grooming itself | Laura's garage door was not left open | modus tollen | Laura's garage door was left open | The cat is grooming itself | Laura's garage door was not left open | The cat is not grooming itself | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's garage door was left open then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, which implies that laura's garage door was not left open.```<|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 found abandoned near the crime scene, because if the weather is cold and rainy then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene and the weather is cold and rainy. | If the weather is cold and rainy then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | The weather is cold and rainy | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | modus ponen | The weather is cold and rainy | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | The weather is not cold and rainy | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, because if the weather is cold and rainy then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene and the weather is cold and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which implies that the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, 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|>
|
The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, because if the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom and no broken window was found in laura's bedroom. | If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom | No broken window was found in laura's bedroom | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, because if the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom and no broken window was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, hence a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox. | If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | 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 surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, hence 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 a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, so it can be concluded that the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime. | If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | modus ponen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, so it can be concluded that the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the cat is purring contentedly, and the cat is not purring contentedly, thus no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene. | If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the cat is purring contentedly | The cat is not purring contentedly | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | modus tollen | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | The cat is purring contentedly | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | The cat is not purring contentedly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the cat is purring contentedly, and the cat is not purring contentedly, thus no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, so emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate. | If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | modus ponen | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, so emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a hybrid then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and the car is a hybrid, so it can be concluded that laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop. | If the car is a hybrid then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The car is a hybrid | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | modus ponen | The car is a hybrid | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The car is not a hybrid | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a hybrid then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and the car is a hybrid, so it can be concluded that laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the squirrel then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, and the dog is barking at the squirrel, which establishes that the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive. | If the dog is barking at the squirrel then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The dog is barking at the squirrel | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the squirrel | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the squirrel then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, and the dog is barking at the squirrel, which establishes that the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, which establishes that a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake. | If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | modus ponen | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, which establishes that a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, so the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data. | If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | modus ponen | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, so the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is grooming itself then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and the cat is grooming itself, thus a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene. | If the cat is grooming itself then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | The cat is grooming itself | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | modus ponen | The cat is grooming itself | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | The cat is not grooming itself | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is grooming itself then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and the cat is grooming itself, thus a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething then the baby is laughing at the toy, and the baby is not laughing at the toy, which implies that the baby is not teething. | If the baby is teething then the baby is laughing at the toy | The baby is not laughing at the toy | The baby is not teething | modus tollen | The baby is teething | The baby is laughing at the toy | The baby is not teething | The baby is not laughing at the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething then the baby is laughing at the toy, and the baby is not laughing at the toy, which implies that the baby is not teething.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is nice then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which establishes that the weather is not nice. | If the weather is nice then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The weather is not nice | modus tollen | The weather is nice | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The weather is not nice | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is nice then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which establishes that the weather is not nice.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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, which shows that detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse. | If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | modus tollen | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | 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 detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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, which shows that detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, thus laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | Officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | modus tollen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, thus laura's neighbors did not report 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, which implies that the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect. | If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | modus ponen | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | 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 security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, which implies that 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 witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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, hence no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack. | If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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 | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | modus tollen | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack 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, hence no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not interesting, because if the book is interesting then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned and a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned. | If the book is interesting then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The book is not interesting | modus tollen | The book is interesting | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The book is not interesting | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | 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 interesting, because if the book is interesting then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned and 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|>
|
The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, because if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the baby is teething on a toy and the baby is not teething on a toy. | If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the baby is teething on a toy | The baby is not teething on a toy | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | modus tollen | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | The baby is teething on a toy | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | The baby is not teething on a toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, because if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the baby is teething on a toy and the baby is not teething on a toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the pizza is hot then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and the pizza is hot, which implies that officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store. | If the pizza is hot then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The pizza is hot | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | modus ponen | The pizza is hot | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The pizza is not hot | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the pizza is hot then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and the pizza is hot, which implies that officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, since if the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment. | If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | modus ponen | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | 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: ```A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, since if the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is eating food then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, so it can be concluded that the cat is not eating food. | If the cat is eating food then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | The cat is not eating food | modus tollen | The cat is eating food | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The cat is not eating food | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | 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 eating food then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, so it can be concluded that the cat is not eating food.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then the book is written by a famous author, and a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, hence the book is written by a famous author. | If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then the book is written by a famous author | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The book is written by a famous author | modus ponen | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The book is written by a famous author | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then the book is written by a famous author, and a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, hence 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|>
|
Laura's pet cat is missing, as if a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then laura's pet cat is missing and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard. | If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then laura's pet cat is missing | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | Laura's pet cat is missing | modus ponen | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | Laura's pet cat is missing | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | Laura's pet cat is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's pet cat is missing, as if a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then laura's pet cat is missing and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a comedy-drama, because if the movie is a comedy-drama then the stolen van was registered in a fake name and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name. | If the movie is a comedy-drama then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | The movie is not a comedy-drama | modus tollen | The movie is a comedy-drama | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The movie is not a comedy-drama | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a comedy-drama, because if the movie is a comedy-drama then the stolen van was registered in a fake name and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and the murder weapon was not a baseball bat, which establishes that a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession. | If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the murder weapon was a baseball bat | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | modus tollen | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and the murder weapon was not a baseball bat, which establishes that a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, which shows that a witness heard screams coming from laura's house. | If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | modus ponen | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, which shows that a witness heard screams coming from laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis has a history of violent behavior, as if a shattered vase was found in the hallway then john davis has a history of violent behavior and a shattered vase was found in the hallway. | If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then john davis has a history of violent behavior | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | modus ponen | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis has a history of violent behavior, as if a shattered vase was found in the hallway then john davis has a history of violent behavior and a shattered vase was found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking loudly then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, and the dog is barking loudly, therefore detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement. | If the dog is barking loudly then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The dog is barking loudly | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | modus ponen | The dog is barking loudly | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The dog is not barking loudly | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking loudly then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, and the dog is barking loudly, therefore detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with a toy car then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and the baby is playing with a toy car, therefore a broken chair was found in the kitchen. | If the baby is playing with a toy car then a broken chair was found in the kitchen | The baby is playing with a toy car | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | modus ponen | The baby is playing with a toy car | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | The baby is not playing with a toy car | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with a toy car then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and the baby is playing with a toy car, therefore a broken chair was found in the kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then water is h2o, and water is not h2o, which establishes that no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene. | If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then water is h2o | Water is not h2o | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | modus tollen | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | Water is H2O | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | Water is not H2O | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then water is h2o, and water is not h2o, which establishes that no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, so it can be concluded that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | Laura's bank accounts did not show 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 sun is setting slowly in the sky then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, so it can be concluded that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, which establishes that laura had a history of changing her locks frequently. | If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | modus ponen | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, which establishes that laura had 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|>
|
The pizza is not hot, since if the pizza is hot then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder and the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder. | If the pizza is hot then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder | The pizza is not hot | modus tollen | The pizza is hot | The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | The pizza is not hot | The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The pizza is not hot, since if the pizza is hot then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder and the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then laura's mail was tampered with, and laura's mail was not tampered with, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then laura's mail was tampered with | Laura's mail was not tampered with | 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 | Laura's mail was tampered with | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | Laura's mail was not tampered with | 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 laura's mail was tampered with, and laura's mail was not tampered with, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, since if a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car. | If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | modus ponen | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, since if a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store and a forensic expert found 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|>
|
The movie is not a musical film, as if the movie is a musical film then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime. | If the movie is a musical film then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | The movie is not a musical film | modus tollen | The movie is a musical film | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The movie is not a musical film | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a musical film, as if the movie is a musical film then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's pet cat is missing, as if the car is a hybrid then laura's pet cat is missing and the car is a hybrid. | If the car is a hybrid then laura's pet cat is missing | The car is a hybrid | Laura's pet cat is missing | modus ponen | The car is a hybrid | Laura's pet cat is missing | The car is not a hybrid | Laura's pet cat is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's pet cat is missing, as if the car is a hybrid then laura's pet cat is missing and the car is a hybrid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, as if the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the movie is a musical film and the movie is not a musical film. | If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the movie is a musical film | The movie is not a musical film | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | modus tollen | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The movie is a musical film | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The movie is not a musical film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, as if the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the movie is a musical film and 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 movie is not a science fiction film, since if the movie is a science fiction film then the cat is sleeping on the couch and the cat is not sleeping on the couch. | If the movie is a science fiction film then the cat is sleeping on the couch | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | The movie is not a science fiction film | modus tollen | The movie is a science fiction film | The cat is sleeping on the couch | The movie is not a science fiction film | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a science fiction film, since if the movie is a science fiction film then the cat is sleeping on the couch and the cat is not sleeping on the couch.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, so it can be concluded that no bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway. | If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | modus tollen | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, so it can be concluded that no bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, which shows that the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions. | If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | modus tollen | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, which shows that the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a romance novel then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and the book is a romance novel, so the cat is purring contentedly on my lap. | If the book is a romance novel then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The book is a romance novel | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | modus ponen | The book is a romance novel | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The book is not a romance novel | 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 the book is a romance novel then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and the book is a romance novel, so the cat is purring contentedly on my lap.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then laura's phone records show calls to 911, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, so laura's phone records show calls to 911. | If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then laura's phone records show calls to 911 | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | modus ponen | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | 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 work computer had a hidden camera installed then laura's phone records show calls to 911, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, so laura's phone records show calls to 911.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the car is a hybrid, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, which shows that the car is a hybrid. | If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the car is a hybrid | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The car is a hybrid | modus ponen | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The car is a hybrid | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | The car is not a hybrid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the car is a hybrid, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, which shows that the car is a hybrid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, therefore the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number. | If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | modus ponen | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, therefore the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, which implies that the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect. | If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then the cat is grooming itself | The cat is not grooming itself | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The cat is grooming itself | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | The cat is not grooming itself | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, which implies that the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, because if laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim and the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim. | If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | modus tollen | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, because if laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim and the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then laura had installed a home security system, and laura had not installed a home security system, thus the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary. | If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then laura had installed a home security system | Laura had not installed a home security system | 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 had installed a home security system | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | 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 victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then laura had installed a home security system, and laura had not installed a home security system, thus the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, because if detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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. | If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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 | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | modus tollen | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | 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: ```Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, because if detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park 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.```<|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 mystery novel then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which shows that the book is not a mystery novel. | If the book is a mystery novel then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The book is not a mystery novel | modus tollen | The book is a mystery novel | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The book is not a mystery novel | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a mystery novel then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which shows that the book is not a mystery novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a documentary then the book is a romance novel, and the movie is a documentary, which establishes that the book is a romance novel. | If the movie is a documentary then the book is a romance novel | The movie is a documentary | The book is a romance novel | modus ponen | The movie is a documentary | The book is a romance novel | The movie is not a documentary | The book is not a romance novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a documentary then the book is a romance novel, and the movie is a documentary, which establishes that the book is a romance novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a drama, as if the movie is a drama then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted and the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted. | If the movie is a drama then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | The movie is not a drama | modus tollen | The movie is a drama | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The movie is not a drama | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a drama, as if the movie is a drama then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted and the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders, because if john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders, because if john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring loudly then the book is written by a famous author, and the cat is purring loudly, which implies that the book is written by a famous author. | If the cat is purring loudly then the book is written by a famous author | The cat is purring loudly | The book is written by a famous author | modus ponen | The cat is purring loudly | The book is written by a famous author | The cat is not purring loudly | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring loudly then the book is written by a famous author, and the cat is purring loudly, which implies that 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|>
|
The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, as if the weather is cold and rainy then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary and the weather is cold and rainy. | If the weather is cold and rainy then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The weather is cold and rainy | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | modus ponen | The weather is cold and rainy | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The weather is not cold and rainy | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, as if the weather is cold and rainy then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary and the weather is cold and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, which establishes that a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home. | If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | modus ponen | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | 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 a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, which establishes that a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim, as if the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow. | If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | modus tollen | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim, as if the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a comedy then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and the movie is a comedy, hence the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors. | If the movie is a comedy then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The movie is a comedy | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | modus ponen | The movie is a comedy | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The movie is not a comedy | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a comedy then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and the movie is a comedy, hence 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|>
|
Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, as if laura had a secret storage room in her house then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store and laura had a secret storage room in her house. | If laura had a secret storage room in her house then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | modus ponen | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, as if laura had a secret storage room in her house then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store and laura had 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|>
|
John davis did not have a history of stalking other women, because if john davis had a history of stalking other women then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene. | If john davis had a history of stalking other women then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a history of stalking other women, because if john davis had a history of stalking other women then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is black then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, so it can be concluded that the cat is not black. | If the cat is black then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The cat is not black | modus tollen | The cat is black | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The cat is not black | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is black then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, so it can be concluded that the cat is not black.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, which shows that the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim. | If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | 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 the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, which shows that the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, as if the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal. | If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, as if the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, so it can be concluded that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft. | If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | modus ponen | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | 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 taken out a hefty life insurance policy then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, so it can be concluded that 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 the book is interesting then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the book is interesting, which shows that the cat is sleeping on the couch. | If the book is interesting then the cat is sleeping on the couch | The book is interesting | The cat is sleeping on the couch | modus ponen | The book is interesting | The cat is sleeping on the couch | The book is not interesting | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is interesting then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the book is interesting, which shows that the cat is sleeping on the couch.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, since if a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then laura's mail was tampered with and laura's mail was not tampered with. | If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then laura's mail was tampered with | Laura's mail was not tampered with | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | modus tollen | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Laura's mail was tampered with | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Laura's mail was not tampered with | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, since if a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then laura's mail was tampered with and laura's mail was not tampered with.```<|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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals, therefore emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky. | If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | modus tollen | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | 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 emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals, therefore emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is a horror film, as if the book is on the table then the movie is a horror film and the book is on the table. | If the book is on the table then the movie is a horror film | The book is on the table | The movie is a horror film | modus ponen | The book is on the table | The movie is a horror film | The book is not on the table | The movie is not a horror film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is a horror film, as if the book is on the table then the movie is a horror film and the book is on the table.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the dog next door then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems, hence the dog is not barking at the dog next door. | If the dog is barking at the dog next door then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the dog next door | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the dog next door then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems, hence the dog is not barking at the dog next door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, because if john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents. | If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | modus ponen | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, because if john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents.```<|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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then laura's mail was tampered with, and laura's mail was not tampered with, so laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker. | If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then laura's mail was tampered with | Laura's mail was not tampered with | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | modus tollen | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | Laura's mail was tampered with | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | Laura's mail was not tampered with | 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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then laura's mail was tampered with, and laura's mail was not tampered with, so laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker.```<|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 baby is playing with toys, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which shows that the baby is playing with toys. | If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the baby is playing with toys | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The baby is playing with toys | modus ponen | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The baby is playing with toys | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The baby is not playing with toys | 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 baby is playing with toys, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which shows that the baby is playing with toys.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the baby is crying loudly, and the baby is not crying loudly, thus emily had not recently taken a self-defense course. | If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the baby is crying loudly | The baby is not crying loudly | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | modus tollen | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The baby is crying loudly | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | The baby is not crying loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the baby is crying loudly, and the baby is not crying loudly, thus emily had not recently taken a self-defense course.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, which shows that a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | modus tollen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, which shows that a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
It is raining today, because if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then it is raining today and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder. | If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then it is raining today | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | It is raining today | modus ponen | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | It is raining today | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | It is not raining today | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```It is raining today, because if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then it is raining today and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the water is warm then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and the water is warm, which implies that a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder. | If the water is warm then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The water is warm | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | modus ponen | The water is warm | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | The water is not warm | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the water is warm then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and the water is warm, which implies that a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is moving then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, and emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, so the car is not moving. | If the car is moving then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The car is not moving | modus tollen | The car is moving | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The car is not moving | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is moving then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, and emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, so the car is not moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not teething on a toy, as if the baby is teething on a toy then the book is on the table and the book is not on the table. | If the baby is teething on a toy then the book is on the table | The book is not on the table | The baby is not teething on a toy | modus tollen | The baby is teething on a toy | The book is on the table | The baby is not teething on a toy | The book is not on the table | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not teething on a toy, as if the baby is teething on a toy then the book is on the table and the book is not on the table.```<|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 caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the football is round, and the football is not round, which establishes that no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene. | If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the football is round | The football is not round | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | modus tollen | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | The football is round | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | The football is not round | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the football is round, and the football is not round, which establishes that no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, therefore the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident. | If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | modus tollen | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, therefore the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, as if laura's garage door was left open then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim and laura's garage door was left open. | If laura's garage door was left open then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | Laura's garage door was left open | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | modus ponen | Laura's garage door was left open | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | Laura's garage door was not left open | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, as if laura's garage door was left open then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim and laura's garage door was left open.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, which implies that a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard. | If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | modus ponen | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, which implies that a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, which shows that laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone. | If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | modus tollen | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, which shows that laura's friends did not receive 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|>
|
The apple is not red, since if the apple is red then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror and no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror. | If the apple is red then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | No threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | The apple is not red | modus tollen | The apple is red | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | The apple is not red | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The apple is not red, since if the apple is red then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror and no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals, which shows that a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings. | If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | modus tollen | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | 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 a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals, which shows that a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a history of financial problems, since if john davis had a history of financial problems then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon and the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon. | If john davis had a history of financial problems then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of financial problems | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a history of financial problems, since if john davis had a history of financial problems then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon and the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, which implies that the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed. | If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | modus ponen | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, which implies that the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed.```<|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 nightstand 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, therefore the book is not on the nightstand. | If the book is on the nightstand 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 book is not on the nightstand | modus tollen | The book is on the nightstand | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | The book is not on the nightstand | 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 book is on the nightstand 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, therefore the book is not on the nightstand.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the pizza is hot, and the pizza is not hot, so it can be concluded that a bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door. | If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the pizza is hot | The pizza is not hot | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | modus tollen | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | The pizza is hot | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | 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: ```If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the pizza is hot, and the pizza is not hot, so it can be concluded that a bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door.```<|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.