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 weather is mild and pleasant then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and the weather is mild and pleasant, therefore sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder. | If the weather is mild and pleasant then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | The weather is mild and pleasant | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | modus ponen | The weather is mild and pleasant | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | The weather is not mild and pleasant | 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 the weather is mild and pleasant then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and the weather is mild and pleasant, therefore sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before 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|>
|
A note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, since if sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house. | If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | modus ponen | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | 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: ```A note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, since if sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow and sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, as if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone. | If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, as if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of anger management issues then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, which implies that john davis did not have a history of anger management issues. | If john davis had a history of anger management issues then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of anger management issues then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, which implies that john davis did not have a history of anger management issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, as if laura's prescription medications were stolen then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects and laura's prescription medications were stolen. | If laura's prescription medications were stolen then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | modus ponen | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | 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: ```Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, as if laura's prescription medications were stolen then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects and laura's prescription medications were stolen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the eiffel tower is in paris then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, hence the eiffel tower is not in paris. | If the eiffel tower is in paris then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | modus tollen | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the eiffel tower is in paris then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, hence the eiffel tower is not in paris.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire, because if the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then laura's car was found with a slashed tire and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim. | If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then laura's car was found with a slashed tire | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | modus ponen | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's car was found with a slashed tire, because if the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then laura's car was found with a slashed tire and the suspect had a documented history of stalking 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 weather is not mild and pleasant, since if the weather is mild and pleasant then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask. | If the weather is mild and pleasant then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The weather is not mild and pleasant | modus tollen | The weather is mild and pleasant | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The weather is not mild and pleasant | 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: ```The weather is not mild and pleasant, since if the weather is mild and pleasant 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 laura had a life insurance policy then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, therefore laura did not have a life insurance policy. | If laura had a life insurance policy then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | modus tollen | Laura had a life insurance policy | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | 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 laura had a life insurance policy then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, and a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, therefore laura did not have 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 the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim 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 suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim. | If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | 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 suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim 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 suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, since if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity and the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity. | If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | 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 | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | 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, since if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity and the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the dog is barking, and the dog is not barking, so a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings. | If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the dog is barking | The dog is not barking | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | modus tollen | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | The dog is barking | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | The dog is not barking | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the dog is barking, and the dog is not barking, so a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with toys 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, which shows that the baby is not playing with toys. | If the baby is playing with toys 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 | The baby is not playing with toys | modus tollen | The baby is playing with toys | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The baby is not playing with toys | 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 the baby is playing with toys 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, which shows that the baby is not playing with toys.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, since if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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. | If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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 | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus tollen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | 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: ```No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, since if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, as if a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession and a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession. | If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | A gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | modus tollen | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | 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: ```No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, as if a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession and a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the car then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and the baby is crying in the car, hence surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house. | If the baby is crying in the car then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | The baby is crying in the car | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | modus ponen | The baby is crying in the car | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | The baby is not crying in the car | 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: ```If the baby is crying in the car then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and the baby is crying in the car, hence surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, thus detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park. | If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | modus tollen | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, thus detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.```<|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 a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, which shows that a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace. | If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | modus ponen | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, which shows that a threatening letter was mailed to laura'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|>
|
Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, since if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | modus ponen | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, since if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse 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 a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument, which establishes that no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id. | If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | modus tollen | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | 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 a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument, which establishes that no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is a family film, because if the dog is barking at the mail truck then the movie is a family film and the dog is barking at the mail truck. | If the dog is barking at the mail truck then the movie is a family film | The dog is barking at the mail truck | The movie is a family film | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the mail truck | The movie is a family film | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | 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: ```The movie is a family film, because if the dog is barking at the mail truck then the movie is a family film and the dog is barking at the mail truck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, since if a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats. | If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | modus tollen | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, since if a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is not barking at the mail truck, so a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair. | If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the dog is barking at the mail truck | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | modus tollen | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | The dog is barking at the mail truck | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is not barking at the mail truck, so a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with a toy car then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and the baby is playing with a toy car, which implies that a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If the baby is playing with a toy car then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | The baby is playing with a toy car | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus ponen | The baby is playing with a toy car | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The baby is not playing with a toy car | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with a toy car then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and the baby is playing with a toy car, which implies that a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, as if the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then the suspect's name is john davis and the suspect's name is not john davis. | If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then the suspect's name is john davis | The suspect's name is not john davis | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | modus tollen | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The suspect's name is John Davis | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The suspect's name is not John Davis | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, as if the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then the suspect's name is john davis and the suspect's name is not john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the dog is barking, and the dog is not barking, which shows that laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors. | If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the dog is barking | The dog is not barking | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | modus tollen | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | The dog is barking | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | The dog is not barking | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the dog is barking, and the dog is not barking, which shows that laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, and no coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, which implies that laura's social media accounts were not hacked. | If laura's social media accounts were hacked then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | No coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | modus tollen | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's social media accounts were hacked then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, and no coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, which implies that laura's social media accounts were not hacked.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, which implies that no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard. | If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | modus tollen | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, which implies that no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, because if the movie is a horror film then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim and the movie is a horror film. | If the movie is a horror film then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The movie is a horror film | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | modus ponen | The movie is a horror film | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The movie is not a horror film | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, because if the movie is a horror film then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim and the movie is a horror film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, thus detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | modus ponen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, thus detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and no broken window was found in laura's bedroom, therefore the sun is not shining brightly in the sky. | If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom | No broken window was found in laura's bedroom | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and no broken window was found in laura's bedroom, therefore the sun is not shining brightly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, which establishes that a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store. | If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | modus ponen | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near 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: ```If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, which establishes that a delivery driver reported 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|>
|
If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, which shows that the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities. | If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | modus ponen | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, which shows that the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities.```<|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 the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, and a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, thus the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization. | If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | 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 the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, and a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, thus the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and a bloody footprint was found in the living room, hence the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery. | If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | modus ponen | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and a bloody footprint was found in the living room, hence the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is tall then the movie is exciting, and the movie is not exciting, which establishes that the tree is not tall. | If the tree is tall then the movie is exciting | The movie is not exciting | The tree is not tall | modus tollen | The tree is tall | The movie is exciting | The tree is not tall | The movie is not exciting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is tall then the movie is exciting, and the movie is not exciting, which establishes that the tree is not tall.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, as if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information. | If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | modus ponen | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, as if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, which establishes that the dog is barking at the mail truck. | If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the dog is barking at the mail truck | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The dog is barking at the mail truck | modus ponen | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The dog is barking at the mail truck | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, which establishes that the dog is barking at the mail truck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, because if a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then a broken chair was found in the kitchen and a broken chair was not found in the kitchen. | If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then a broken chair was found in the kitchen | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | modus tollen | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | 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: ```A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment, because if a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then a broken chair was found in the kitchen and a broken chair was not 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 footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard, so it can be concluded that footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene. | If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | modus tollen | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard, so it can be concluded that footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is tall then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and the tree is tall, so it can be concluded that a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair. | If the tree is tall then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | The tree is tall | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | modus ponen | The tree is tall | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | The tree is not tall | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is tall then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and the tree is tall, so it can be concluded that a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, which implies that a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | modus ponen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, which implies that a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a collection of short stories then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and the book is a collection of short stories, which shows that officer brown discovered a hidden basement. | If the book is a collection of short stories then officer brown discovered a hidden basement | The book is a collection of short stories | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | modus ponen | The book is a collection of short stories | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | The book is not a collection of short stories | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a collection of short stories then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and the book is a collection of short stories, which shows that officer brown discovered a hidden basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, thus john davis had a history of stalking other women. | If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then john davis had a history of stalking other women | A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | modus ponen | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, thus john davis had a history of stalking other women.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, since if a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data and the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data. | If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | modus tollen | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, since if a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data and the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then the movie is a musical film, and the movie is not a musical film, so it can be concluded that emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers. | If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then the movie is a musical film | The movie is not a musical film | Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers | modus tollen | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | The movie is a musical film | Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers | 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 emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then the movie is a musical film, and the movie is not a musical film, so it can be concluded that emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home, thus the sun is not shining brightly in the sky. | If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home, thus the sun is not shining brightly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the book is written by a famous author, and laura's phone records show calls to 911, so the book is written by a famous author. | If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the book is written by a famous author | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | The book is written by a famous author | modus ponen | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | The book is written by a famous author | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the book is written by a famous author, and laura's phone records show calls to 911, so the book is written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder 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 shows that sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder. | If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder 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 | Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | modus tollen | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | 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 sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder 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 shows that sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a romance novel then the baby is crying in the car, and the book is a romance novel, so the baby is crying in the car. | If the book is a romance novel then the baby is crying in the car | The book is a romance novel | The baby is crying in the car | modus ponen | The book is a romance novel | The baby is crying in the car | The book is not a romance novel | 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 book is a romance novel then the baby is crying in the car, and the book is a romance novel, so 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 a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the cat is not sleeping on the couch, so a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home. | If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the cat is sleeping on the couch | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | modus tollen | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | The cat is sleeping on the couch | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the cat is not sleeping on the couch, so a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking at the mailman, because if laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the dog is barking at the mailman and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop. | If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the dog is barking at the mailman | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The dog is barking at the mailman | modus ponen | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The dog is barking at the mailman | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | The dog is not barking at the mailman | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking at the mailman, because if laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the dog is barking at the mailman and laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, thus the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus ponen | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | 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 laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, thus 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|>
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop, which establishes 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 a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | 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 | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop, which establishes 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 the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van, which implies that the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home. | If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | modus tollen | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van, which implies that the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, hence a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby. | If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, hence 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 a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, so no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard. | If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | modus tollen | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, so no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, as if officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the baby is crawling towards the door and the baby is not crawling towards the door. | If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the baby is crawling towards the door | The baby is not crawling towards the door | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | modus tollen | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | The baby is crawling towards the door | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | 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: ```Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, as if officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the baby is crawling towards the door and the baby is not crawling towards the door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the sun is shining brightly, and the sun is not shining brightly, therefore the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors. | If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the sun is shining brightly | The sun is not shining brightly | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The sun is shining brightly | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | 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: ```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the sun is shining brightly, and the sun is not shining brightly, therefore the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is hot and humid then laura had installed a home security system, and the weather is hot and humid, so laura had installed a home security system. | If the weather is hot and humid then laura had installed a home security system | The weather is hot and humid | Laura had installed a home security system | modus ponen | The weather is hot and humid | Laura had installed a home security system | The weather is not hot and humid | Laura had not installed a home security system | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is hot and humid then laura had installed a home security system, and the weather is hot and humid, so 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 the movie is a musical film then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, hence the movie is not a musical film. | If the movie is a musical film then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | The movie is not a musical film | modus tollen | The movie is a musical film | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The movie is not a musical film | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a musical film then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, hence the movie is not a musical film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a memoir then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, which implies that the book is not a memoir. | If the book is a memoir then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | The book is not a memoir | modus tollen | The book is a memoir | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The book is not a memoir | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a memoir then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, which implies that the book is not a memoir.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, as if the weather is cloudy and rainy then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago and the weather is cloudy and rainy. | If the weather is cloudy and rainy then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The weather is cloudy and rainy | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | modus ponen | The weather is cloudy and rainy | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, as if the weather is cloudy and rainy then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago and the weather is cloudy and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then the car is parked in the garage, and the car is not parked in the garage, which shows that john davis did not have bruises on his arms. | If john davis had bruises on his arms then the car is parked in the garage | The car is not parked in the garage | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | modus tollen | John Davis had bruises on his arms | The car is parked in the garage | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | 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: ```If john davis had bruises on his arms then the car is parked in the garage, and the car is not parked in the garage, which shows that john davis did not have bruises on his arms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a mystery novel then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and the book is a mystery novel, which implies that john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone. | If the book is a mystery novel then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | The book is a mystery novel | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | modus ponen | The book is a mystery novel | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The book is not a mystery novel | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a mystery novel then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and the book is a mystery novel, which implies that john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the baby is crawling towards the toy, therefore the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the baby is crawling towards the toy, therefore the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had a life insurance policy then the movie is a thriller, and laura had a life insurance policy, which establishes that the movie is a thriller. | If laura had a life insurance policy then the movie is a thriller | Laura had a life insurance policy | The movie is a thriller | modus ponen | Laura had a life insurance policy | The movie is a thriller | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | The movie is not a thriller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a life insurance policy then the movie is a thriller, and laura had a life insurance policy, which establishes that the movie is a thriller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, which implies that the book is not written by a famous author. | If the book is written by a famous author then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | Sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing | The book is not written by a famous author | modus tollen | The book is written by a famous author | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | The book is not written by a famous author | 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 the book is written by a famous author then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, which implies that the book is not written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is eating food then the book is on the nightstand, and the book is not on the nightstand, therefore the cat is not eating food. | If the cat is eating food then the book is on the nightstand | The book is not on the nightstand | The cat is not eating food | modus tollen | The cat is eating food | The book is on the nightstand | The cat is not eating food | The book is not on the nightstand | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is eating food then the book is on the nightstand, and the book is not on the nightstand, therefore the cat is not eating food.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, as if the sun is shining through the window then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence and the sun is shining through the window. | If the sun is shining through the window then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | The sun is shining through the window | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | modus ponen | The sun is shining through the window | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | The sun is not shining through the window | 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, as if the sun is shining through the window then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence and the sun is shining through the window.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is not barking at the mail truck, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues. | If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the dog is barking at the mail truck | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The dog is barking at the mail truck | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is not barking at the mail truck, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a comedy, as if the movie is a comedy then the dog is barking loudly and the dog is not barking loudly. | If the movie is a comedy then the dog is barking loudly | The dog is not barking loudly | The movie is not a comedy | modus tollen | The movie is a comedy | The dog is barking loudly | The movie is not a comedy | The dog is not barking loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a comedy, as if the movie is a comedy then the dog is barking loudly and the dog is not barking loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, so it can be concluded that the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus ponen | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, so it can be concluded that the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No broken window was found in laura's bedroom, because if a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar and a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar. | If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar | A fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | modus tollen | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No broken window was found in laura's bedroom, because if a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar and a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, thus no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim. | If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | modus tollen | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses, thus no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, as if a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky and a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession. | If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | A gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | modus ponen | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, as if a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky and a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so it can be concluded that the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees. | If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | modus ponen | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so it can be concluded that the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the baby is laughing at the toy, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, therefore the baby is laughing at the toy. | If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the baby is laughing at the toy | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The baby is laughing at the toy | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The baby is laughing at the toy | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The baby is not laughing at the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the baby is laughing at the toy, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, therefore the baby is laughing at the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, thus the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data. | If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | modus ponen | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, thus the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The car is parked in the garage, since if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the car is parked in the garage and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park. | If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the car is parked in the garage | A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The car is parked in the garage | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The car is parked in the garage | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | 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 car is parked in the garage, since if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then the car is parked in the garage and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is interesting then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, and the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, which establishes that the book is not interesting. | If the book is interesting then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The book is not interesting | modus tollen | The book is interesting | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The book is not interesting | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is interesting then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, and the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, which establishes that the book is not interesting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then laura's pet cat is missing, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, therefore laura's pet cat is missing. | If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then laura's pet cat is missing | A witness heard screams coming from laura's house | Laura's pet cat is missing | modus ponen | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | Laura's pet cat is missing | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | Laura's pet cat is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then laura's pet cat is missing, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, therefore laura's pet cat is missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, thus the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery. | If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | A gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | modus ponen | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, thus the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, so it can be concluded that a security camera captured the suspect entering the building. | If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building | A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | modus ponen | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, so it can be concluded that a security camera captured the suspect entering the building.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then the car is a hybrid, and the car is not a hybrid, which establishes that no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene. | If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then the car is a hybrid | The car is not a hybrid | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The car is a hybrid | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The car is not a hybrid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then the car is a hybrid, and the car is not a hybrid, which establishes that 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 a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, hence a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car. | If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | modus tollen | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | 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 found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, hence a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, which implies that john davis was found with a bag of cash. | If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then john davis was found with a bag of cash | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | modus ponen | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, which implies that john davis was found with a bag of cash.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, because if a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the sun is shining brightly in the sky and the sun is not shining brightly in the sky. | If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the sun is shining brightly in the sky | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | modus tollen | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, because if a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the sun is shining brightly in the sky and the sun is not shining brightly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of identity theft then laura's passport is missing, and john davis had a history of identity theft, thus laura's passport is missing. | If john davis had a history of identity theft then laura's passport is missing | John davis had a history of identity theft | Laura's passport is missing | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of identity theft | Laura's passport is missing | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | Laura's passport is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of identity theft then laura's passport is missing, and john davis had a history of identity theft, thus laura's passport is missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the phone is ringing, and the phone is not ringing, which implies that laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop. | If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the phone is ringing | The phone is not ringing | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | modus tollen | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The phone is ringing | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | The phone is not ringing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the phone is ringing, and the phone is not ringing, which implies that laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, which establishes that no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house. | If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | modus tollen | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, which establishes that no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox. | If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | 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 | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, and emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, thus john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | modus ponen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | 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 a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, thus john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, therefore officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene. | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat | A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | modus tollen | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, therefore officer smith did not find a broken window 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|>
|
The book is a collection of short stories, because if a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then the book is a collection of short stories and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop. | If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then the book is a collection of short stories | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The book is a collection of short stories | modus ponen | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The book is a collection of short stories | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | The book is not a collection of short stories | 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 collection of short stories, because if a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then the book is a collection of short stories and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, since if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest. | If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | John davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | 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 | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, since if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.```<|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 hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, which establishes that a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene. | If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | modus ponen | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, which establishes that a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, which establishes that the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus ponen | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | 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 homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, which establishes 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|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, therefore john davis had recently purchased a firearm. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then john davis had recently purchased a firearm | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | modus ponen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | 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 john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, therefore john davis had recently purchased a firearm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns, since if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle. | If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | 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 fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | 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: ```The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns, since if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.