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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, because if a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack. | If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | modus ponen | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, because if a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, because if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the movie is a thriller and the movie is not a thriller. | If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the movie is a thriller | The movie is not a thriller | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | modus tollen | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The movie is a thriller | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | 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: ```A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, because if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the movie is a thriller and the movie is not 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 john davis had a history of substance abuse then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and john davis had a history of substance abuse, which establishes that the weather is cloudy and rainy. | If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the weather is cloudy and rainy | John davis had a history of substance abuse | The weather is cloudy and rainy | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | The weather is cloudy and rainy | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | 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 substance abuse then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and john davis had a history of substance abuse, which establishes that the weather is 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|>
|
The tree is shedding leaves, since if a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the tree is shedding leaves and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo. | If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the tree is shedding leaves | A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo | The tree is shedding leaves | modus ponen | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | The tree is shedding leaves | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | The tree is not shedding leaves | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The tree is shedding leaves, since if a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the tree is shedding leaves and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, since if the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo and a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo. | If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo | A homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | modus tollen | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, since if the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo and a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, which establishes that the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect. | If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, which establishes that the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, because if the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then john davis had a history of identity theft and john davis did not have a history of identity theft. | If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then john davis had a history of identity theft | John davis did not have a history of identity theft | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | John Davis had a history of identity theft | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | 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: ```The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, because if the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then john davis had a history of identity theft and john davis did not have a history of identity theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, therefore laura's car was not found with a slashed tire. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | modus tollen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, therefore laura's car was not found with a slashed tire.```<|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 crying loudly, since if the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then the baby is crying loudly and the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster. | If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then the baby is crying loudly | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The baby is crying loudly | modus ponen | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The baby is crying loudly | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | The baby is not crying loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is crying loudly, since if the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then the baby is crying loudly and the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is nice then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone, which establishes that the weather is not nice. | If the weather is nice then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | The weather is not nice | modus tollen | The weather is nice | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The weather is not nice | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is nice then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone, which establishes that the weather is not nice.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and laura's prescription medications were not stolen, which establishes that the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest. | If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then laura's prescription medications were stolen | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | modus tollen | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and laura's prescription medications were not stolen, which establishes that the stolen car was not 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 the book is a memoir then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the building, which establishes that the book is not a memoir. | If the book is a memoir then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The book is not a memoir | modus tollen | The book is a memoir | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The book is not a memoir | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a memoir then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the building, which establishes that the book is not a memoir.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the building, therefore no bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus tollen | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the building, therefore 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|>
|
The dog is barking loudly, because if the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the dog is barking loudly and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact. | If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the dog is barking loudly | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | The dog is barking loudly | modus ponen | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | The dog is barking loudly | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | The dog is not barking loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking loudly, because if the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the dog is barking loudly and the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, and emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers, which implies that emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky. | If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | modus tollen | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, and emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers, which implies that emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit, because if john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the dog is barking at the mailman and the dog is not barking at the mailman. | If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is not barking at the mailman | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus tollen | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The dog is barking at the mailman | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | The dog is not barking at the mailman | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit, because if john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the dog is barking at the mailman and the dog is not barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the dog is barking at the stranger, and the dog is not barking at the stranger, which implies that officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store. | If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the dog is barking at the stranger | The dog is not barking at the stranger | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | modus tollen | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | The dog is barking at the stranger | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | The dog is not barking at the stranger | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the dog is barking at the stranger, and the dog is not barking at the stranger, which implies that officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If it is raining today then the car is parked on the street, and it is raining today, thus the car is parked on the street. | If it is raining today then the car is parked on the street | It is raining today | The car is parked on the street | modus ponen | It is raining today | The car is parked on the street | It is not raining today | 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 it is raining today then the car is parked on the street, and it is raining today, thus the car is parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, as if a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon and the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon. | If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | modus tollen | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, as if a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon and the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, thus the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, thus the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the bestseller list then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, and no threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, so the book is not on the bestseller list. | If the book is on the bestseller list then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace | No threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace | The book is not on the bestseller list | modus tollen | The book is on the bestseller list | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | The book is not on the bestseller list | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the bestseller list then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, and no threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, so the book is not on the bestseller list.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then the cat is sleeping soundly, and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, therefore the cat is sleeping soundly. | If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then the cat is sleeping soundly | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The cat is sleeping soundly | modus ponen | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The cat is sleeping soundly | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | The cat is not sleeping soundly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then the cat is sleeping soundly, and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, therefore the cat is sleeping soundly.```<|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 surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, which establishes that no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim. | If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | No witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | modus tollen | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, which establishes that no surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, and officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, which implies that sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death. | If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | modus tollen | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | 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 sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, and officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, which implies that sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, as if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then john davis had a history of stalking laura and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then john davis had a history of stalking laura | John davis did not have a history of stalking laura | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | modus tollen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, as if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then john davis had a history of stalking laura and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, hence a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession. | If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then john davis had a history of stalking laura | John davis did not have a history of stalking laura | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | modus tollen | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, hence a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, because if a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs. | If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | John davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, because if a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is drinking from a bottle then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, which implies that the baby is not drinking from a bottle. | If the baby is drinking from a bottle then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | modus tollen | The baby is drinking from a bottle | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following 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 baby is drinking from a bottle then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, which implies that the baby is not drinking from a bottle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is moving then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, which establishes that the car is not moving. | If the car is moving then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The car is not moving | modus tollen | The car is moving | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The car is not moving | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is moving then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, which establishes that the car is not moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping soundly then the movie is a musical film, and the movie is not a musical film, which implies that the cat is not sleeping soundly. | If the cat is sleeping soundly then the movie is a musical film | The movie is not a musical film | The cat is not sleeping soundly | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping soundly | The movie is a musical film | The cat is not sleeping soundly | The movie is not a musical film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping soundly then the movie is a musical film, and the movie is not a musical film, which implies that the cat is not sleeping soundly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sky is not blue, since if the sky is blue then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions and the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions. | If the sky is blue then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | The sky is not blue | modus tollen | The sky is blue | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The sky is not blue | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sky is not blue, since if the sky is blue then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions and the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then the dog is barking at the door, and laura's laptop was found smashed, which establishes that the dog is barking at the door. | If laura's laptop was found smashed then the dog is barking at the door | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The dog is barking at the door | modus ponen | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The dog is barking at the door | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | The dog is not barking at the door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then the dog is barking at the door, and laura's laptop was found smashed, which establishes that the dog is barking at the door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, thus a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | modus ponen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, thus a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a science fiction film then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, hence the movie is not a science fiction film. | If the movie is a science fiction film then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The movie is not a science fiction film | modus tollen | The movie is a science fiction film | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The movie is not a science fiction film | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a science fiction film then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, hence the movie is not a science fiction film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms, thus no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard. | If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms | John davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | modus tollen | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms, thus no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, because if sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs. | If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | John davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | modus tollen | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, because if sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs.```<|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 a memoir, as if detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the book is a memoir and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects. | If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the book is a memoir | Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | The book is a memoir | modus ponen | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | The book is a memoir | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | The book is not a memoir | 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 a memoir, as if detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the book is a memoir and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, hence the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker. | If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | modus ponen | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, hence the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, which implies that a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair. | If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | modus ponen | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, which implies that a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment, hence the dog is not barking at the mailman. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | The dog is not barking at the mailman | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mailman | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The dog is not barking at the mailman | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment, hence the dog is not barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, so it can be concluded that the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror. | If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | modus ponen | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | 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 computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, so it can be concluded that the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, as if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror. | If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | modus ponen | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed 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: ```The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, as if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the eiffel tower is in paris then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, and the eiffel tower is in paris, hence footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene. | If the eiffel tower is in paris then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene | The eiffel tower is in paris | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | modus ponen | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near 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 eiffel tower is in paris then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, and the eiffel tower is in paris, hence footprints matching john's shoes were 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|>
|
If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the sky is blue, and the sky is not blue, thus the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest. | If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the sky is blue | The sky is not blue | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | modus tollen | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The sky is blue | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The sky is not blue | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the sky is blue, and the sky is not blue, thus the stolen car was not 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 a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then laura's laptop was found smashed, and laura's laptop was not found smashed, which implies that a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene. | If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then laura's laptop was found smashed | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | modus tollen | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | Laura's laptop was found smashed | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then laura's laptop was found smashed, and laura's laptop was not found smashed, which implies that a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking loudly then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and the dog is barking loudly, thus the murder weapon was a baseball bat. | If the dog is barking loudly then the murder weapon was a baseball bat | The dog is barking loudly | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | modus ponen | The dog is barking loudly | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | The dog is not barking loudly | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking loudly then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and the dog is barking loudly, thus the murder weapon was a baseball bat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene, as if a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect. | If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | modus tollen | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene, as if a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, as if the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it. | If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | modus ponen | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, as if the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed and the murder weapon had 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|>
|
The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, because if the baby is playing with toys then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder and the baby is playing with toys. | If the baby is playing with toys then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The baby is playing with toys | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | modus ponen | The baby is playing with toys | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The baby is not playing with toys | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, because if the baby is playing with toys then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder and the baby is playing with toys.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, hence a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession. | If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | modus tollen | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | 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 a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, hence a gps device linked to the stolen van was not 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 the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, which shows that the baby is drinking from a bottle. | If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the baby is drinking from a bottle | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The baby is drinking from a bottle | modus ponen | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The baby is drinking from a bottle | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, which shows that the baby is drinking from a bottle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, as if a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house. | If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | modus ponen | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, as if a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, as if a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the cat is purring loudly and the cat is not purring loudly. | If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the cat is purring loudly | The cat is not purring loudly | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | modus tollen | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | The cat is purring loudly | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | The cat is not purring loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, as if a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the cat is purring loudly and the cat is not purring loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a hybrid then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and the car is a hybrid, which shows that john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone. | If the car is a hybrid then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | The car is a hybrid | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | modus ponen | The car is a hybrid | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The car is not a hybrid | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a hybrid then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and the car is a hybrid, which shows that john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, therefore the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime. | If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | modus tollen | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, therefore the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was found with a bag of cash then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and john davis was found with a bag of cash, which establishes that the dog is barking at the neighbors. | If john davis was found with a bag of cash then the dog is barking at the neighbors | John davis was found with a bag of cash | The dog is barking at the neighbors | modus ponen | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | The dog is barking at the neighbors | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was found with a bag of cash then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and john davis was found with a bag of cash, which establishes that the dog is barking at the neighbors.```<|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 firearm matching the murder weapon 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, thus the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon. | If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon 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 suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | 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 suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon 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, thus the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's pet cat is missing then the cat is purring contentedly, and the cat is not purring contentedly, which establishes that laura's pet cat is not missing. | If laura's pet cat is missing then the cat is purring contentedly | The cat is not purring contentedly | Laura's pet cat is not missing | modus tollen | Laura's pet cat is missing | The cat is purring contentedly | Laura's pet cat is not missing | The cat is not purring contentedly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's pet cat is missing then the cat is purring contentedly, and the cat is not purring contentedly, which establishes that laura's pet cat is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, so it can be concluded that the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim. | If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | modus tollen | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, so it can be concluded that the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, which shows that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | modus tollen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | 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 a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, which shows that no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the movie is a horror film, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, which implies that the movie is a horror film. | If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the movie is a horror film | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The movie is a horror film | modus ponen | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The movie is a horror film | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | The movie is not a horror film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the movie is a horror film, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, which implies that the movie is a horror film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the movie is exciting, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, hence the movie is exciting. | If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the movie is exciting | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | The movie is exciting | modus ponen | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | The movie is exciting | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | The movie is not exciting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the movie is exciting, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, hence 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 dogs are not fish then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, and dogs are not fish, therefore a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect. | If dogs are not fish then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | Dogs are not fish | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | modus ponen | Dogs are not fish | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | Dogs are fish | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If dogs are not fish then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, and dogs are not fish, therefore a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the computer is on then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, therefore the computer is not on. | If the computer is on then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The computer is not on | modus tollen | The computer is on | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The computer is not on | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the computer is on then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, therefore the computer is not on.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The football is not round, because if the football is round then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom and no broken window was found in laura's bedroom. | If the football is round then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom | No broken window was found in laura's bedroom | The football is not round | modus tollen | The football is round | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | The football is not round | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The football is not round, because if the football is round then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom and no broken window was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, so a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack. | If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | modus ponen | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, so a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a secret storage unit then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, and a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily, which shows that john davis did not have a secret storage unit. | If john davis had a secret storage unit then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | modus tollen | John Davis had a secret storage unit | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a secret storage unit then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, and a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily, which shows that john davis did not have a secret storage unit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then laura's passport is missing, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, which shows that laura's passport is missing. | If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then laura's passport is missing | John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | Laura's passport is missing | modus ponen | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | Laura's passport is missing | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | 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 john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then laura's passport is missing, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, which shows that laura's passport 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|>
|
Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident, since if laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then the victim's name is laura martinez and the victim's name is not laura martinez. | If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then the victim's name is laura martinez | The victim's name is not laura martinez | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | modus tollen | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident, since if laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then the victim's name is laura martinez and the victim's name is not laura martinez.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, which implies that emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask. | If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | modus tollen | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, which implies that emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, which implies that no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen. | If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then laura's dog was found locked in a closet | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | modus tollen | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, which implies that no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, which implies that a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby. | If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | A fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | modus ponen | A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar | 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 a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, which implies that 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|>
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, which shows that emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon. | If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | modus ponen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, which shows that emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, thus laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop. | If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | modus ponen | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, thus laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which implies that emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder. | If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the book is written by a famous author | The book is not written by a famous author | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | modus tollen | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The book is written by a famous author | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | 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 emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which implies that emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after 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 john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders. | If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | John davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | 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 john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building 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, thus no security camera captured the suspect entering the building. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building 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 | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | modus tollen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | 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 a security camera captured the suspect entering the building 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, thus no security camera captured the suspect entering the building.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and john davis did not have a history of substance abuse, so it can be concluded that the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary. | If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then john davis had a history of substance abuse | John davis did not have a history of substance abuse | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | modus tollen | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and john davis did not have a history of substance abuse, so it can be concluded that the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's laptop was found smashed, as if a neighbor heard a gunshot then laura's laptop was found smashed and a neighbor heard a gunshot. | If a neighbor heard a gunshot then laura's laptop was found smashed | A neighbor heard a gunshot | Laura's laptop was found smashed | modus ponen | A neighbor heard a gunshot | Laura's laptop was found smashed | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's laptop was found smashed, as if a neighbor heard a gunshot then laura's laptop was found smashed and a neighbor heard a gunshot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, so it can be concluded that john davis had a history of substance abuse. | If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then john davis had a history of substance abuse | Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | modus ponen | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | 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 ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, so it can be concluded that john davis had a history of substance abuse.```<|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 strand of hair was found at the crime scene then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, and a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, so the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle. | If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | modus ponen | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a strand of hair was found at the crime scene then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, and a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, so the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The eiffel tower is not in paris, since if the eiffel tower is in paris then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse. | If the eiffel tower is in paris then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | modus tollen | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The eiffel tower is not in paris, since if the eiffel tower is in paris then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, therefore the suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim. | If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | John davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, therefore the suspect did not have 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 emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, therefore emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon 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 | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | modus tollen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, therefore emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, therefore the victim's name is not sarah mitchell. | If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | John davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | modus tollen | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, therefore the victim's name is not sarah mitchell.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, because if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim. | If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | modus tollen | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, because if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sky is blue then the book is a bestseller, and the book is not a bestseller, so it can be concluded that the sky is not blue. | If the sky is blue then the book is a bestseller | The book is not a bestseller | The sky is not blue | modus tollen | The sky is blue | The book is a bestseller | The sky is not blue | The book is not a bestseller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sky is blue then the book is a bestseller, and the book is not a bestseller, so it can be concluded that the sky is not blue.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a bestseller 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, which shows that the book is not a bestseller. | If the book is a bestseller 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 | The book is not a bestseller | modus tollen | The book is a bestseller | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The book is not a bestseller | 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 the book is a bestseller 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, which shows that the book is not a bestseller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then laura's phone records show calls to 911, and laura's phone records do not show calls to 911, which shows that the murder weapon was not a baseball bat. | If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then laura's phone records show calls to 911 | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | modus tollen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then laura's phone records show calls to 911, and laura's phone records do not show calls to 911, which shows that the murder weapon was not a baseball bat.```<|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 laptop was found smashed then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and laura's laptop was found smashed, so a broken window was found in laura's bedroom. | If laura's laptop was found smashed then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom | Laura's laptop was found smashed | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | modus ponen | Laura's laptop was found smashed | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and laura's laptop was found smashed, so a broken window was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly then a shattered vase was found in the hallway, and the sun is shining brightly, which shows that a shattered vase was found in the hallway. | If the sun is shining brightly then a shattered vase was found in the hallway | The sun is shining brightly | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | modus ponen | The sun is shining brightly | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | The sun is not shining brightly | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly then a shattered vase was found in the hallway, and the sun is shining brightly, which shows that a shattered vase was found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, and no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, hence the dog is not barking at the mailman. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | No threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | The dog is not barking at the mailman | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mailman | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | The dog is not barking at the mailman | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, and no threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, hence the dog is not barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and john davis was not found with a bag of cash, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have bruises on his arms. | If john davis had bruises on his arms then john davis was found with a bag of cash | John davis was not found with a bag of cash | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | modus tollen | John Davis had bruises on his arms | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had bruises on his arms then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and john davis was not found with a bag of cash, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have bruises on his arms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is shedding leaves then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the tree is not shedding leaves. | If the tree is shedding leaves then the arson occurred on elm street | The arson did not occur on elm street | The tree is not shedding leaves | modus tollen | The tree is shedding leaves | The arson occurred on Elm Street | The tree is not shedding leaves | 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: ```If the tree is shedding leaves then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the tree is not shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, since if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the sun is shining through the window and the sun is not shining through the window. | If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the sun is shining through the window | The sun is not shining through the window | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The sun is shining through the window | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | The sun is not shining through the window | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, since if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the sun is shining through the window and the sun is not 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 the baby is crawling towards the door then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, hence the baby is not crawling towards the door. | If the baby is crawling towards the door then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | The baby is not crawling towards the door | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the door | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The baby is not crawling towards the door | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the door then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, hence the baby is not crawling towards the door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, which implies that no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster. | If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the cat is grooming itself | The cat is not grooming itself | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | modus tollen | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The cat is grooming itself | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The cat is not grooming itself | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, which implies that no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, because if officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet. | If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | modus ponen | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, because if officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals, which implies that john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone. | If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | modus tollen | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals, which implies that john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then the book is a mystery novel, and the book is not a mystery novel, which implies that the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it. | If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then the book is a mystery novel | The book is not a mystery novel | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | modus tollen | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | The book is a mystery novel | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | The book is not a mystery novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then the book is a mystery novel, and the book is not a mystery novel, which implies 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|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.