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 computer is on then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and the computer is on, therefore richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account. | If the computer is on then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | The computer is on | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | modus ponen | The computer is on | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | The computer is not on | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the computer is on then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and the computer is on, therefore richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, since if officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape. | If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | modus tollen | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | 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: ```Officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, since if officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, thus laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | 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 a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, thus laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a horror film then the car is parked on the street, and the car is not parked on the street, so the movie is not a horror film. | If the movie is a horror film then the car is parked on the street | The car is not parked on the street | The movie is not a horror film | modus tollen | The movie is a horror film | The car is parked on the street | The movie is not a horror film | The car is not parked on the street | 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 horror film then the car is parked on the street, and the car is not parked on the street, so the movie is not a horror film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the baby is crying, and the baby is not crying, so no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the baby is crying | The baby is not crying | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus tollen | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | The baby is crying | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | The baby is not crying | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then the baby is crying, and the baby is not crying, so no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the bird is singing, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, so it can be concluded that the bird is singing. | If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the bird is singing | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The bird is singing | modus ponen | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The bird is singing | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | The bird is not singing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the bird is singing, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, so it can be concluded that the bird is singing.```<|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 the car is moving, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, therefore the car is moving. | If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the car is moving | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The car is moving | modus ponen | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The car is moving | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | The car is not moving | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the car is moving, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, therefore the car is moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky. | If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | modus ponen | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky.```<|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 not reported near the crime scene, because if a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags and a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags. | If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | modus tollen | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, because if a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags and a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then the car is parked on the street, and the car is not parked on the street, which implies that surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery. | If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then the car is parked on the street | The car is not parked on the street | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The car is parked on the street | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The car is not parked on the street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then the car is parked on the street, and the car is not parked on the street, which implies that surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then laura's pet cat is missing, and a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, so laura's pet cat is missing. | If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then laura's pet cat is missing | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | Laura's pet cat is missing | modus ponen | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | Laura's pet cat is missing | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | 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: ```If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then laura's pet cat is missing, and a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, so laura's pet cat is missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, which establishes that the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it. | If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | modus tollen | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, which establishes that the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery 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, which shows that the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery. | If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery 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 | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | modus tollen | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | 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: ```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery 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, which shows that the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking at the dog next door, since if the sun is shining then the dog is barking at the dog next door and the sun is shining. | If the sun is shining then the dog is barking at the dog next door | The sun is shining | The dog is barking at the dog next door | modus ponen | The sun is shining | The dog is barking at the dog next door | The sun is not shining | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking at the dog next door, since if the sun is shining then the dog is barking at the dog next door and the sun is shining.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | modus tollen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, and no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, so a shattered vase was not found in the hallway. | If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | modus tollen | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, and no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, so a shattered vase was not 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|>
|
Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, as if the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim. | If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, as if the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery and the suspect had a history of violence 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 a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the movie is a musical film, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, hence the movie is a musical film. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the movie is a musical film | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The movie is a musical film | modus ponen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The movie is a musical film | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The movie is not a musical film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the movie is a musical film, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, hence the movie is a musical film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then john davis had bruises on his arms, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, which shows that john davis had bruises on his arms. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then john davis had bruises on his arms | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | John Davis had bruises on his arms | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | John Davis had bruises on his arms | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then john davis had bruises on his arms, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, which shows that john davis had bruises on his arms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, and the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery, therefore a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | modus tollen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, and the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery, therefore a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not crying in the car, since if the baby is crying in the car then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house and no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house. | If the baby is crying in the car then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | The baby is not crying in the car | modus tollen | The baby is crying in the car | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The baby is not crying in the car | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not crying in the car, since if the baby is crying in the car then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house and no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the book is written by a famous author, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, so it can be concluded that the book is written by a famous author. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the book is written by a famous author | Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | The book is written by a famous author | modus ponen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | The book is written by a famous author | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the book is written by a famous author, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, so it can be concluded 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|>
|
If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, hence laura's prescription medications were stolen. | If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then laura's prescription medications were stolen | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | modus ponen | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, hence laura's prescription medications were stolen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, therefore a witness heard screams coming from laura's house. | If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house | John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | modus ponen | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | 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 john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, therefore a witness heard screams coming from laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, and no coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, which establishes that laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently. | If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | No coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | modus tollen | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a history of changing her locks frequently then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, and no coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, which establishes that laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, because if the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment. | If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | modus ponen | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | 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 recently changed their locks due to security concerns, because if the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns 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|>
|
The book is not on the table, as if the book is on the table then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If the book is on the table then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | The book is not on the table | modus tollen | The book is on the table | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | The book is not on the table | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not on the table, as if the book is on the table then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the baby is playing with blocks, and the baby is not playing with blocks, hence laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone. | If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the baby is playing with blocks | The baby is not playing with blocks | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | modus tollen | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The baby is playing with blocks | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | The baby is not playing with blocks | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the baby is playing with blocks, and the baby is not playing with blocks, hence 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 victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, as if fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop. | If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | modus ponen | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | 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: ```The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, as if fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the phone is ringing then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the phone is ringing, hence the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause. | If the phone is ringing then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | The phone is ringing | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | modus ponen | The phone is ringing | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | The phone is not ringing | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the phone is ringing then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the phone is ringing, hence the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining through the window then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and the sun is shining through the window, hence the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home. | If the sun is shining through the window then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The sun is shining through the window | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | modus ponen | The sun is shining through the window | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The sun is not shining through the window | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining through the window then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and the sun is shining through the window, hence the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, as if the sun is setting then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop and the sun is setting. | If the sun is setting then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The sun is setting | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | modus ponen | The sun is setting | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The sun is not setting | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, as if the sun is setting then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop and the sun is setting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had a secret storage room in her house then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura had a secret storage room in her house, thus laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john. | If laura had a secret storage room in her house then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | modus ponen | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a secret storage room in her house then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura had a secret storage room in her house, thus laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, which establishes that no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene. | If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | modus tollen | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, which establishes that no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, because if the book is interesting then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park and the book is interesting. | If the book is interesting then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The book is interesting | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | modus ponen | The book is interesting | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The book is not interesting | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, because if the book is interesting then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park and the book is interesting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, so it can be concluded that laura's jewelry box was emptied. | If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then laura's jewelry box was emptied | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | modus ponen | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, so it can be concluded that laura's jewelry box was emptied.```<|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 emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, so it can be concluded that the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary. | If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | modus tollen | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, so it can be concluded that the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then the baby is sleeping, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, which shows that the baby is sleeping. | If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then the baby is sleeping | John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | The baby is sleeping | modus ponen | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | The baby is sleeping | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | The baby is not sleeping | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then the baby is sleeping, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, which shows that the baby is sleeping.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, thus emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle. | If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | modus tollen | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, thus emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, and detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, which shows that the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools. | If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter | Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, and detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, which shows that the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, as if john davis had a history of stalking other women then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard and john davis had a history of stalking other women. | If john davis had a history of stalking other women then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | John davis had a history of stalking other women | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, as if john davis had a history of stalking other women then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard and john davis had a history of stalking other women.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, therefore no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the movie is a comedy-drama | The movie is not a comedy-drama | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | modus tollen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The movie is a comedy-drama | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The movie is not a comedy-drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, therefore no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously 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 john davis had a history of anger management issues then the apple is red, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, therefore the apple is red. | If john davis had a history of anger management issues then the apple is red | John davis had a history of anger management issues | The apple is red | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | The apple is red | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | The apple is not red | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of anger management issues then the apple is red, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, therefore the apple is red.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, hence no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house. | If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | modus tollen | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | 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 cellar was discovered under laura's house then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, hence no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the baby is sleeping, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, therefore the baby is sleeping. | If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the baby is sleeping | John davis had a restraining order violation in the past | The baby is sleeping | modus ponen | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | The baby is sleeping | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | The baby is not sleeping | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the baby is sleeping, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, therefore the baby is sleeping.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the baby is not teething. | If the baby is teething then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | The baby is not teething | modus tollen | The baby is teething | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | The baby is not teething | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, so it can be concluded 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|>
|
The book is not interesting, since if the book is interesting then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape. | If the book is interesting then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | The book is not interesting | modus tollen | The book is interesting | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The book is not interesting | 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: ```The book is not interesting, since if the book is interesting then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery 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, thus surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery. | If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery 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 | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | 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 surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery 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, thus surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then paris is in france, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, therefore paris is in france. | If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then paris is in france | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Paris is in France | modus ponen | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Paris is in France | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Paris is not in France | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then paris is in france, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, therefore paris is in france.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, because if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns. | If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | modus ponen | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, because if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns.```<|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 sports film, because if the computer is on then the movie is a sports film and the computer is on. | If the computer is on then the movie is a sports film | The computer is on | The movie is a sports film | modus ponen | The computer is on | The movie is a sports film | The computer is not on | The movie is not a sports 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 sports film, because if the computer is on then the movie is a sports film and the computer is on.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of anger management issues then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, therefore john davis did not have a history of anger management issues. | If john davis had a history of anger management issues then john davis had a history of identity theft | John davis did not have a history of identity theft | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | John Davis had a history of identity theft | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of anger management issues then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, therefore john davis did not have a history of anger management issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, so a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession. | If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | modus ponen | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, so a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, which implies that sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing. | If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | John davis had a history of violating restraining orders | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, which implies that sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not a bestseller, because if the book is a bestseller then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and no bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If the book is a bestseller then a bloody footprint was found in the living room | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | The book is not a bestseller | modus tollen | The book is a bestseller | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | The book is not a bestseller | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not a bestseller, because if the book is a bestseller then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and no bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, because if the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon. | If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | modus ponen | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, because if the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, therefore a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby. | If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | modus ponen | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, therefore a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, since if a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake. | If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus ponen | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, since if a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit and 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|>
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, since if a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder. | If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | modus ponen | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, since if a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with toys then the water is warm, and the water is not warm, which establishes that the baby is not playing with toys. | If the baby is playing with toys then the water is warm | The water is not warm | The baby is not playing with toys | modus tollen | The baby is playing with toys | The water is warm | The baby is not playing with toys | The water is not warm | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with toys then the water is warm, and the water is not warm, which establishes that the baby is not playing with toys.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cloudy and rainy then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, hence the weather is not cloudy and rainy. | If the weather is cloudy and rainy then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | modus tollen | The weather is cloudy and rainy | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | 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 weather is cloudy and rainy then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, hence the weather is not cloudy 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|>
|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, as if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom. | If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | A hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | modus ponen | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, as if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors and a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, so officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby. | If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | modus ponen | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, so officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and the weather is mild and pleasant, therefore a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement. | If the weather is mild and pleasant then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | The weather is mild and pleasant | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | modus ponen | The weather is mild and pleasant | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | The weather is not mild and pleasant | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is mild and pleasant then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and the weather is mild and pleasant, therefore a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, which establishes that a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard. | If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | modus tollen | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, which establishes that a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, because if the dog is barking at the squirrel then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard and the dog is barking at the squirrel. | If the dog is barking at the squirrel then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | The dog is barking at the squirrel | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the squirrel | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, because if the dog is barking at the squirrel then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard and the dog is barking at the squirrel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a biography then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and the book is a biography, hence officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene. | If the book is a biography then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The book is a biography | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | modus ponen | The book is a biography | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The book is not a biography | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a biography then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and the book is a biography, hence officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, since if a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house. | If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | A witness heard screams coming from laura's house | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | modus ponen | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, since if a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery and 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|>
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted, which shows that no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | modus tollen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | 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: ```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted, which shows that no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, because if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street. | If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the arson occurred on elm street | The arson did not occur on elm street | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | modus tollen | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The arson occurred on Elm Street | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, because if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns, as if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the stolen van was registered in a fake name and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name. | If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | 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 victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns, as if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns 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 richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the dog is barking at the dog next door, and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, which shows that the dog is barking at the dog next door. | If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the dog is barking at the dog next door | Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | The dog is barking at the dog next door | modus ponen | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | The dog is barking at the dog next door | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then the dog is barking at the dog next door, and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, which shows that the dog is barking at the dog next door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, since if laura's phone records show calls to 911 then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization and laura's phone records show calls to 911. | If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | modus ponen | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, since if laura's phone records show calls to 911 then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization and 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 baby is crawling towards the cat then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, which implies that the baby is not crawling towards the cat. | If the baby is crawling towards the cat then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the cat | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the cat then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, which implies that the baby is not crawling towards the cat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a history of stalking other women, because if the sun is shining through the window then john davis had a history of stalking other women and the sun is shining through the window. | If the sun is shining through the window then john davis had a history of stalking other women | The sun is shining through the window | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | modus ponen | The sun is shining through the window | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | The sun is not shining through the window | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a history of stalking other women, because if the sun is shining through the window then john davis had a history of stalking other women and the sun is shining through the window.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, so it can be concluded that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft. | If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | modus ponen | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | 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 a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, 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|>
|
The phone is ringing, because if the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the phone is ringing and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest. | If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the phone is ringing | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The phone is ringing | modus ponen | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The phone is ringing | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The phone is not ringing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The phone is ringing, because if the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the phone is ringing and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then laura's passport is missing, and laura's passport is not missing, which establishes that footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene. | If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then laura's passport is missing | Laura's passport is not missing | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | modus tollen | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | Laura's passport is missing | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | Laura's passport is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then laura's passport is missing, and laura's passport is not missing, which establishes that footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, because if a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night. | If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, because if a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, which establishes that emily had recently taken a self-defense course. | If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then emily had recently taken a self-defense course | John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | modus ponen | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, which establishes that emily had recently taken a self-defense course.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the eiffel tower is in paris then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and the eiffel tower is in paris, which establishes that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft. | If the eiffel tower is in paris then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | The eiffel tower is in paris | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | modus ponen | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | 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 the eiffel tower is in paris then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and the eiffel tower is in paris, which establishes 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 a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the weather is hot and humid, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, so it can be concluded that the weather is hot and humid. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the weather is hot and humid | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | The weather is hot and humid | modus ponen | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | The weather is hot and humid | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | The weather is not hot and humid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then the weather is hot and humid, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, so it can be concluded that the weather is hot and humid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring 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, so the cat is not purring. | If the cat is purring 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 cat is not purring | modus tollen | The cat is purring | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The cat is not purring | 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 cat is purring 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, so the cat is not purring.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, because if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle and the sun is setting slowly in the sky. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | modus ponen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, because if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle and the sun is setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, because if a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage and a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar. | If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | A fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | modus ponen | A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, because if a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage and a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, because if detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the baby is crying and the baby is not crying. | If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the baby is crying | The baby is not crying | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | modus tollen | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | The baby is crying | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | The baby is not crying | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, because if detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the baby is crying and the baby is not crying.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, which shows that a bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a bloody footprint was found in the living room | A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus ponen | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, which shows that a bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then the movie is exciting, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, which shows that the movie is exciting. | If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then the movie is exciting | Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | The movie is exciting | modus ponen | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | The movie is exciting | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | The movie is not exciting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then the movie is exciting, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, which shows that the movie is exciting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If it is raining today then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, and it is raining today, which implies that john davis had a restraining order violation in the past. | If it is raining today then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past | It is raining today | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | modus ponen | It is raining today | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | It is not raining today | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If it is raining today then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, and it is raining today, which implies that john davis had a restraining order violation in the past.```<|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 laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, so the baby is not playing with a toy car. | If the baby is playing with a toy car then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | The baby is not playing with a toy car | modus tollen | The baby is playing with a toy car | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | The baby is not playing with a toy car | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with a toy car then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, so the baby is not playing with a toy car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, so the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment. | If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | modus ponen | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, so 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 sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene, which implies that sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house. | If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | modus tollen | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from 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 sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene, which implies that sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and no witness heard screams coming from laura's house, which shows that the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted. | If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house | No witness heard screams coming from laura's house | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | modus tollen | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | 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 store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and no witness heard screams coming from laura's house, which shows that 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|>
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, therefore laura's phone records do not show calls to 911. | If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | modus tollen | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before 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 laura's phone records show calls to 911 then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, therefore laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, and the victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, which implies that the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity. | If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | modus tollen | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | 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 victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, and the victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, which implies that the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a horror film then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which establishes that the movie is not a horror film. | If the movie is a horror film then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The movie is not a horror film | modus tollen | The movie is a horror film | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The movie is not a horror film | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a horror film then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which establishes that the movie is not a horror film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the movie is a thriller, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, therefore the movie is a thriller. | If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the movie is a thriller | A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The movie is a thriller | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The movie is a thriller | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The movie is not a thriller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the movie is a thriller, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, therefore the movie is a thriller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, so a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene. | If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | modus ponen | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | 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 laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, so 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 a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, therefore a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine. | If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | modus tollen | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, therefore a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring contentedly then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, therefore the cat is not purring contentedly. | If the cat is purring contentedly then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | The cat is not purring contentedly | modus tollen | The cat is purring contentedly | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The cat is not purring contentedly | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring contentedly then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, therefore the cat is not purring contentedly.```<|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.