Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street. stringlengths 74 421 | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street stringlengths 36 192 | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 788 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street stringclasses 788 values | modus ponen stringclasses 2 values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1 stringclasses 394 values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street stringclasses 394 values | True bool 1 class | text stringlengths 453 800 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If the movie is a thriller then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, which establishes that the movie is not a thriller. | If the movie is a thriller then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The movie is not a thriller | modus tollen | The movie is a thriller | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The movie is not a thriller | 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: ```If the movie is a thriller then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, which establishes that 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 the car is parked on the street then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and john davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck, hence the car is not parked on the street. | If the car is parked on the street then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck | John davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | The car is not parked on the street | modus tollen | The car is parked on the street | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | The car is not parked on the street | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is parked on the street then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and john davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck, hence the car is not parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, which shows that laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john. | If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | modus ponen | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, which shows that laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's house was booby-trapped then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, and laura's house was booby-trapped, hence the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number. | If laura's house was booby-trapped then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | Laura's house was booby-trapped | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | modus ponen | Laura's house was booby-trapped | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's house was booby-trapped then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, and laura's house was booby-trapped, hence the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, thus the sun is setting slowly in the sky. | If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | modus ponen | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, thus the sun is setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, so sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily. | If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | modus tollen | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, so sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, because if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car. | If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | modus ponen | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, because if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not crying, as if the baby is crying then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house and no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house. | If the baby is crying then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | The baby is not crying | modus tollen | The baby is crying | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | The baby is not crying | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not crying, as if the baby is crying then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house and no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, hence a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | modus ponen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, hence a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, which establishes that the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim. | If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, which establishes that the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, since if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect 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 the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | 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: ```The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, since if the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect 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 stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the baby is crawling towards the door, and the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, so the baby is crawling towards the door. | If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the baby is crawling towards the door | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | The baby is crawling towards the door | modus ponen | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | The baby is crawling towards the door | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | The baby is not crawling towards 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 the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the baby is crawling towards the door, and the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, so the baby is 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 the arson occurred on elm street then laura's mail was tampered with, and laura's mail was not tampered with, so it can be concluded that the arson did not occur on elm street. | If the arson occurred on elm street then laura's mail was tampered with | Laura's mail was not tampered with | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | modus tollen | The arson occurred on Elm Street | Laura's mail was tampered with | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | Laura's mail was not tampered with | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the arson occurred on elm street then laura's mail was tampered with, and laura's mail was not tampered with, so it can be concluded that the arson did not occur on elm street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is grooming itself then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, hence the cat is not grooming itself. | If the cat is grooming itself then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | John davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe | The cat is not grooming itself | modus tollen | The cat is grooming itself | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | The cat is not grooming itself | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is grooming itself then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, hence the cat is not grooming itself.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, which establishes that the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems. | If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | modus ponen | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, which establishes that the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, which implies that the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | modus ponen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near 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 security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, which implies that 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 tree is not tall, as if the tree is tall then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects and detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects. | If the tree is tall then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | The tree is not tall | modus tollen | The tree is tall | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | The tree is not tall | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | 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 not tall, as if the tree is tall then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects and detective parker did not receive 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 a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, which establishes that a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house. | If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | modus ponen | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, which establishes that 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|>
|
If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, which implies that laura's jewelry box was emptied. | If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then laura's jewelry box was emptied | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | modus ponen | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, which implies that laura's jewelry box was emptied.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, which shows that the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror. | If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | modus ponen | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | 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 laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, which shows 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|>
|
If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then laura had installed a home security system, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, which establishes that laura had installed a home security system. | If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then laura had installed a home security system | A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment | Laura had installed a home security system | modus ponen | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | Laura had installed a home security system | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | Laura had not installed a home security system | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then laura had installed a home security system, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, which establishes that laura had installed a home security system.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van, hence no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene. | If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van, hence no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, hence emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop. | If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | modus ponen | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, hence emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, as if the baby is playing with blocks then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary and the baby is playing with blocks. | If the baby is playing with blocks then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The baby is playing with blocks | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | modus ponen | The baby is playing with blocks | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The baby is not playing with blocks | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, as if the baby is playing with blocks then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary and the baby is playing with blocks.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, since if a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the sun is shining brightly and the sun is not shining brightly. | If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the sun is shining brightly | The sun is not shining brightly | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | modus tollen | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The sun is shining brightly | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The sun is not shining brightly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, since if a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the sun is shining brightly and the sun is not shining brightly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking at the dog next door, as if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the dog is barking at the dog next door and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime. | If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the dog is barking at the dog next door | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The dog is barking at the dog next door | modus ponen | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The dog is barking at the dog next door | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking at the dog next door, as if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the dog is barking at the dog next door and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The water is not warm, as if the water is warm then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery. | If the water is warm then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | The water is not warm | modus tollen | The water is warm | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | The water is not warm | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The water is not warm, as if the water is warm then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, therefore emily had not recently taken a self-defense course. | If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | modus tollen | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, therefore emily had not recently taken a self-defense course.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, which implies that john davis had a history of anger management issues. | If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then john davis had a history of anger management issues | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | modus ponen | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, which implies that john davis had a history of anger management issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, thus laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident. | If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | modus ponen | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, thus laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, and the victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, therefore a neighbor did not hear a gunshot. | If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | modus tollen | A neighbor heard a gunshot | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, and the victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, therefore a neighbor did not hear 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|>
|
Officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, since if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the book is on the bestseller list and the book is not on the bestseller list. | If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the book is on the bestseller list | The book is not on the bestseller list | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | modus tollen | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The book is on the bestseller list | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The book is not on the bestseller list | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, since if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the book is on the bestseller list and 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 john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and john davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck, which shows that john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit. | If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck | John davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus tollen | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | 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 john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and john davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck, which shows that john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had bruises on his arms, since if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then john davis had bruises on his arms and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily. | If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then john davis had bruises on his arms | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | John Davis had bruises on his arms | modus ponen | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | John Davis had bruises on his arms | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had bruises on his arms, since if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then john davis had bruises on his arms and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the dog is barking loudly, and the dog is not barking loudly, hence the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. | If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the dog is barking loudly | The dog is not barking loudly | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | modus tollen | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The dog is barking loudly | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The dog is not barking loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the dog is barking loudly, and the dog is not barking loudly, hence the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, since if a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions. | If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | modus tollen | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | 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: ```No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, since if a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the computer is on, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, which shows that the computer is on. | If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the computer is on | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The computer is on | modus ponen | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The computer is on | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The computer is not on | 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 the computer is on, and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, which shows that the computer is on.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the movie is a family film, and the movie is not a family film, which implies that the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim. | If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the movie is a family film | The movie is not a family film | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The movie is a family film | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The movie is not a family film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the movie is a family film, and the movie is not a family film, which implies that the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to 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|>
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, because if a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby. | If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | modus ponen | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, because if a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door and 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 dog is barking at the dog next door then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and the dog is barking at the dog next door, hence laura's prescription medications were stolen. | If the dog is barking at the dog next door then laura's prescription medications were stolen | The dog is barking at the dog next door | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the dog next door | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | 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 dog is barking at the dog next door then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and the dog is barking at the dog next door, hence laura's prescription medications were stolen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining through the window then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and the baby is not crawling towards the toy, which implies that the sun is not shining through the window. | If the sun is shining through the window then the baby is crawling towards the toy | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | The sun is not shining through the window | modus tollen | The sun is shining through the window | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The sun is not shining through the window | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining through the window then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and the baby is not crawling towards the toy, which implies that 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|>
|
A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, because if a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door. | If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | modus ponen | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, because if a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then laura had a life insurance policy, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, thus laura had a life insurance policy. | If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then laura had a life insurance policy | Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder | Laura had a life insurance policy | modus ponen | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | Laura had a life insurance policy | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | Laura did not have a 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 emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then laura had a life insurance policy, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, thus laura had a life insurance policy.```<|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 bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which shows that sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house. | If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | modus ponen | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which shows that sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, so the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle. | If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | modus ponen | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | 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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, 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|>
|
If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, hence sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy. | If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | No homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | modus tollen | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, hence sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.```<|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 house was booby-trapped then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and laura's house was booby-trapped, therefore a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house. | If laura's house was booby-trapped then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | Laura's house was booby-trapped | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | modus ponen | Laura's house was booby-trapped | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's house was booby-trapped then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and laura's house was booby-trapped, therefore a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, as if a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask. | If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | modus tollen | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, as if a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask and 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 the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the movie is a musical film, and the movie is not a musical film, which implies that the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools. | If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the movie is a musical film | The movie is not a musical film | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The movie is a musical film | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | 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 suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then the movie is a musical film, and the movie is not a musical film, which implies that the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street. | If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street | Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder | The arson occurred on Elm Street | modus ponen | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | The arson occurred on Elm Street | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | 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 emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, so it can be concluded that laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer. | If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | modus tollen | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, so it can be concluded that laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, thus emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle. | If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | modus ponen | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, thus emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, so it can be concluded that the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus ponen | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, so it can be concluded that the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not grooming itself, since if the cat is grooming itself then the apple is red and the apple is not red. | If the cat is grooming itself then the apple is red | The apple is not red | The cat is not grooming itself | modus tollen | The cat is grooming itself | The apple is red | The cat is not grooming itself | The apple is not red | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is not grooming itself, since if the cat is grooming itself then the apple is red and the apple is not red.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then the pizza is hot, and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, thus the pizza is hot. | If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then the pizza is hot | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The pizza is hot | modus ponen | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The pizza is hot | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The pizza is not hot | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then the pizza is hot, and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, thus the pizza is hot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, so the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns. | If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, so the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, which shows that john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe. | If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | Sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | modus tollen | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, which shows that john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, as if a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john. | If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | modus tollen | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, as if a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace, therefore no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard. | If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | modus tollen | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace, therefore no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then laura's garage door was left open, and laura's garage door was not left open, hence sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house. | If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then laura's garage door was left open | Laura's garage door was not left open | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | modus tollen | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | Laura's garage door was left open | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | Laura's garage door was not left open | 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 missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then laura's garage door was left open, and laura's garage door was not left open, hence sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, and emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, thus emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout. | If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder | Emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | modus tollen | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, and emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, thus emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then the car is a sedan, and the car is not a sedan, which establishes that laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker. | If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then the car is a sedan | The car is not a sedan | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | modus tollen | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | The car is a sedan | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | The car is not a sedan | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then the car is a sedan, and the car is not a sedan, which establishes that laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the baby is crawling, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, which shows that the baby is crawling. | If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the baby is crawling | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | The baby is crawling | modus ponen | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | The baby is crawling | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | The baby is not crawling | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the baby is crawling, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, which shows that the baby is crawling.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is sleeping then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and the baby is sleeping, therefore a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace. | If the baby is sleeping then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The baby is sleeping | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | modus ponen | The baby is sleeping | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The baby is not sleeping | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is sleeping then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and the baby is sleeping, therefore a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, which establishes that no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop. | If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | modus tollen | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, which establishes that no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the book is a biography, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, thus the book is a biography. | If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the book is a biography | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The book is a biography | modus ponen | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The book is a biography | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The book is not a biography | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the book is a biography, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, thus the book is a biography.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, hence a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine. | If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | modus ponen | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | 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's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, hence a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents, hence emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft. | If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | John davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | modus tollen | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | 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 emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents, hence emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, hence the victim's name is not sarah mitchell. | If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | modus tollen | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's 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 victim's name is sarah mitchell then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, hence 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|>
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, which implies that the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years. | If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | modus tollen | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, which implies that the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, so footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene. | If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene | Surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | 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 surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, so 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|>
|
The dog is not barking loudly, because if the dog is barking loudly then the dog is barking at the stranger and the dog is not barking at the stranger. | If the dog is barking loudly then the dog is barking at the stranger | The dog is not barking at the stranger | The dog is not barking loudly | modus tollen | The dog is barking loudly | The dog is barking at the stranger | The dog is not barking loudly | 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: ```The dog is not barking loudly, because if the dog is barking loudly then the dog is barking at the stranger and the dog is not barking at the stranger.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is a mystery novel, as if emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the book is a mystery novel and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate. | If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the book is a mystery novel | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The book is a mystery novel | modus ponen | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The book is a mystery novel | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | 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: ```The book is a mystery novel, as if emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the book is a mystery novel and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, since if laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence and laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident. | If laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | modus ponen | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, since if laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence and laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the computer is on, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, so the computer is on. | If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the computer is on | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The computer is on | modus ponen | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The computer is on | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | The computer is not on | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then the computer is on, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, so the computer is on.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, so forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing. | If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, so forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, since if a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | modus ponen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, since if a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder, which shows that a shattered vase was not found in the hallway. | If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | Sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | modus tollen | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder, which shows that a shattered vase was not found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, since if the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim. | If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, since if the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to 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 hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and a broken chair was not found in the kitchen, hence no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then a broken chair was found in the kitchen | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | modus tollen | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and a broken chair was not found in the kitchen, hence no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, so a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession. | If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | modus ponen | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, so a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is not shining, as if the sun is shining then the baby is teething on a toy and the baby is not teething on a toy. | If the sun is shining then the baby is teething on a toy | The baby is not teething on a toy | The sun is not shining | modus tollen | The sun is shining | The baby is teething on a toy | The sun is not shining | The baby is not teething on a toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not shining, as if the sun is shining then the baby is teething on a toy and the baby is not teething on a toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a gas leak was detected in the basement then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, therefore a gas leak was not detected in the basement. | If a gas leak was detected in the basement then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet | Officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | modus tollen | A gas leak was detected in the basement | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's 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 gas leak was detected in the basement then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, therefore a gas leak was not detected in the basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, which shows that no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus tollen | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, which shows that no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, so it can be concluded that emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder. | If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | modus tollen | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, so it can be concluded that emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a musical film, because if the movie is a musical film then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data. | If the movie is a musical film then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | The movie is not a musical film | modus tollen | The movie is a musical film | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The movie is not a musical film | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a musical film, because if the movie is a musical film then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction, thus john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape. | If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction | A jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | modus tollen | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction, thus john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, because if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store and officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store. | If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | Officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | modus tollen | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | 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 threats was not found in laura's mailbox, because if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store and 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 a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, hence a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | modus tollen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, hence a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, so it can be concluded that no broken window was found in laura's bedroom. | If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | modus tollen | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and no note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, so it can be concluded that 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 a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which implies that the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years. | If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | modus ponen | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which implies that the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the apple is red, and laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, thus the apple is red. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the apple is red | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | The apple is red | modus ponen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | The apple is red | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | The apple is not red | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the apple is red, and laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, thus the apple is red.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the baby is crying in the car, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, hence the baby is crying in the car. | If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the baby is crying in the car | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The baby is crying in the car | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The baby is crying in the car | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The baby is not crying in the car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then the baby is crying in the car, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, hence the baby is crying in the car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, so it can be concluded that richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account. | If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then emily had recently taken a self-defense course | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | modus tollen | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, so it can be concluded that richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the book is a romance novel, and the book is not a romance novel, so it can be concluded that a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store. | If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the book is a romance novel | The book is not a romance novel | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | modus tollen | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The book is a romance novel | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The book is not a romance novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the book is a romance novel, and the book is not a romance novel, so it can be concluded that a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near 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|>
|
The apple is not red, as if the apple is red then the car is parked in the garage and the car is not parked in the garage. | If the apple is red then the car is parked in the garage | The car is not parked in the garage | The apple is not red | modus tollen | The apple is red | The car is parked in the garage | The apple is not red | The car is not parked in the garage | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The apple is not red, as if the apple is red then the car is parked in the garage and the car is not parked in the garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, which implies that a broken chair was found in the kitchen. | If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a broken chair was found in the kitchen | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | modus ponen | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, which implies that a broken chair was found in the kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then the book is a mystery novel, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, so it can be concluded that the book is a mystery novel. | If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then the book is a mystery novel | Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | The book is a mystery novel | modus ponen | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | The book is a mystery novel | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | 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 sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then the book is a mystery novel, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, so it can be concluded that the book is a mystery novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, thus emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | modus ponen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, thus emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is shining brightly, as if the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the sun is shining brightly and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years. | If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the sun is shining brightly | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The sun is shining brightly | modus ponen | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The sun is shining brightly | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | The sun is not shining brightly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is shining brightly, as if the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the sun is shining brightly and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years.```<|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.