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 john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms. | If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | modus tollen | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | 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: ```If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms.```<|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 work computer did not have a hidden camera installed, as if laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house and sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house. | If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | modus tollen | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed, as if laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house and sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is laughing at the toy, since if the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the baby is laughing at the toy and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number. | If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the baby is laughing at the toy | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The baby is laughing at the toy | modus ponen | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The baby is laughing at the toy | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | 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: ```The baby is laughing at the toy, since if the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the baby is laughing at the toy and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk, therefore surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery. | If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk, therefore surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, because if a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders and john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders | John davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, because if a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders and john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms. | If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | modus tollen | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms.```<|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 lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then john davis had a history of financial problems, and john davis did not have a history of financial problems, so officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet. | If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then john davis had a history of financial problems | John davis did not have a history of financial problems | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | modus tollen | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | John Davis had a history of financial problems | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then john davis had a history of financial problems, and john davis did not have a history of financial problems, so officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, which implies that the cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror. | If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | No witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | modus tollen | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, which implies that the cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is happy then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, so the dog is not happy. | If the dog is happy then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The dog is not happy | modus tollen | The dog is happy | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The dog is not happy | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is happy then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, so the dog is not happy.```<|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 not a sedan, since if the car is a sedan then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack and no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack. | If the car is a sedan then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | The car is not a sedan | modus tollen | The car is a sedan | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | The car is not a sedan | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is not a sedan, since if the car is a sedan then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack and no witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, which establishes that the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder. | If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | modus ponen | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, which establishes that the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, thus a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car. | If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | modus ponen | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, thus a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, and the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, so it can be concluded that no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house. | If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | 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: ```If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, and the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, so it can be concluded that no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, since if a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house. | If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it | A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | modus ponen | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, since if a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is parked in the garage then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, therefore the car is not parked in the garage. | If the car is parked in the garage then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | No cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | The car is not parked in the garage | modus tollen | The car is parked in the garage | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | The car is not parked in the garage | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is parked in the garage then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, therefore the car is not parked in the garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, therefore richard anderson had a history of financial troubles. | If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | modus ponen | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | 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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, therefore richard anderson had a history of financial troubles.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a history of substance abuse, as if john davis had a history of substance abuse then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors. | If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a history of substance abuse, as if john davis had a history of substance abuse then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and 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|>
|
A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, since if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m. | If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | modus tollen | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, since if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.```<|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 had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, hence the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect. | If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | modus ponen | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, hence the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which establishes that a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store. | If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | modus ponen | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | 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 the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, 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 a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, thus the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity. | If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | modus ponen | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | 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: ```If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, thus the suspect had 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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, which implies that laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis. | If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis | Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | modus ponen | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, which implies that laura martinez had a restraining order against 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|>
|
Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, since if surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then laura had recently changed her social media passwords and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | modus tollen | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, since if surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then laura had recently changed her social media passwords and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords.```<|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 phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then the car is moving, and the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, which establishes that the car is moving. | If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then the car is moving | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The car is moving | modus ponen | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The car is moving | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The car is not moving | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then the car is moving, and the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, which establishes that the car is moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the book is a bestseller, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which implies that the book is a bestseller. | If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the book is a bestseller | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | The book is a bestseller | modus ponen | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The book is a bestseller | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The book is not a bestseller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the book is a bestseller, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which implies that the book is a bestseller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and the dog is barking at the mailman, so it can be concluded that detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | The dog is barking at the mailman | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the mailman | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | The dog is not barking at the mailman | 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 the dog is barking at the mailman then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and the dog is barking at the mailman, so it can be concluded that 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|>
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire, since if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then laura's car was found with a slashed tire and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then laura's car was found with a slashed tire | A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | modus ponen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | 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, since if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then laura's car was found with a slashed tire and 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|>
|
If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, and no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, which implies that the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors. | If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, and no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, which implies that 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|>
|
The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, because if laura's mail was tampered with then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect and laura's mail was tampered with. | If laura's mail was tampered with then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Laura's mail was tampered with | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | modus ponen | Laura's mail was tampered with | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Laura's mail was not tampered with | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, because if laura's mail was tampered with then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect and laura's mail was tampered with.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, which shows that a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace. | If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | Richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | modus ponen | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, which shows that a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The car is not a hybrid, since if the car is a hybrid then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap and the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap. | If the car is a hybrid then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | The car is not a hybrid | modus tollen | The car is a hybrid | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The car is not a hybrid | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is not a hybrid, since if the car is a hybrid then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap and the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed, so emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft. | If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | modus tollen | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed, so emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, which establishes that the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain. | If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | modus ponen | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, which establishes that the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then john davis had bruises on his arms, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, hence john davis had bruises on his arms. | If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then john davis had bruises on his arms | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | John Davis had bruises on his arms | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | John Davis had bruises on his arms | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then john davis had bruises on his arms, and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, hence john davis had bruises on his arms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, since if a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby. | If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | modus ponen | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, since if a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.```<|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 ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft, since if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the dog is barking at the squirrel and the dog is not barking at the squirrel. | If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the dog is barking at the squirrel | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | modus tollen | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | The dog is barking at the squirrel | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft, since if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the dog is barking at the squirrel and the dog is not barking at the squirrel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then john davis had a secret storage unit, and john davis did not have a secret storage unit, which establishes that a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then john davis had a secret storage unit | John davis did not have a secret storage unit | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | John Davis had a secret storage unit | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then john davis had a secret storage unit, and john davis did not have a secret storage unit, which establishes that a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then laura's pet cat is missing, and laura's pet cat is not missing, which implies that the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime. | If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then laura's pet cat is missing | Laura's pet cat is not missing | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | modus tollen | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | Laura's pet cat is missing | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | 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 the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then laura's pet cat is missing, and laura's pet cat is not missing, which implies that the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is eating food, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the cat is eating food and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the cat is eating food | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The cat is eating food | modus ponen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The cat is eating food | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The cat is not eating food | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is eating food, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the cat is eating food and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, which shows that the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon. | If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | modus ponen | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, which shows that the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not crying loudly, because if the baby is crying loudly then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace and a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace. | If the baby is crying loudly then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | The baby is not crying loudly | modus tollen | The baby is crying loudly | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The baby is not crying loudly | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not crying loudly, because if the baby is crying loudly then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace and a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then the baby is crying loudly, and laura's laptop was found smashed, hence the baby is crying loudly. | If laura's laptop was found smashed then the baby is crying loudly | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The baby is crying loudly | modus ponen | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The baby is crying loudly | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | The baby is not crying loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then the baby is crying loudly, and laura's laptop was found smashed, hence the baby is crying 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 a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, hence john davis had recently purchased a firearm. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then john davis had recently purchased a firearm | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | modus ponen | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | 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 hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, hence 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 cat is not eating food, as if the cat is eating food then the movie is a family film and the movie is not a family film. | If the cat is eating food then the movie is a family film | The movie is not a family film | The cat is not eating food | modus tollen | The cat is eating food | The movie is a family film | The cat is not eating food | 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 cat is not eating food, as if the cat is eating food then the movie is a family film and the movie is not a family film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A broken chair was not found in the kitchen, as if a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the baby is crying in the stroller and the baby is not crying in the stroller. | If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the baby is crying in the stroller | The baby is not crying in the stroller | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | modus tollen | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | The baby is crying in the stroller | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | The baby is not crying in the stroller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A broken chair was not found in the kitchen, as if a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the baby is crying in the stroller and the baby is not crying in the stroller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the stranger then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and the dog is barking at the stranger, which establishes that the cat is purring contentedly on my lap. | If the dog is barking at the stranger then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The dog is barking at the stranger | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the stranger | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The dog is not barking at the stranger | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the stranger then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and the dog is barking at the stranger, which establishes that the cat is purring contentedly on my lap.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had a life insurance policy then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, and richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery, hence laura did not have a life insurance policy. | If laura had a life insurance policy then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery | Richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | modus tollen | Laura had a life insurance policy | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had a life insurance policy then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, and richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery, hence 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 a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, so it can be concluded that a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo. | If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | modus tollen | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, so it can be concluded that a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not barking, as if the dog is barking then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry and no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry. | If the dog is barking then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | No witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | The dog is not barking | modus tollen | The dog is barking | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | The dog is not barking | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is not barking, as if the dog is barking then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry and no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, as if a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then john davis had a secret storage unit and john davis did not have a secret storage unit. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then john davis had a secret storage unit | John davis did not have a secret storage unit | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | modus tollen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | John Davis had a secret storage unit | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, as if a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then john davis had a secret storage unit and john davis did not have a secret storage unit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, which implies that the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement. | If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | modus tollen | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, which implies that the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement.```<|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 jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then john davis had a history of identity theft, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, therefore john davis had a history of identity theft. | If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then john davis had a history of identity theft | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | John Davis had a history of identity theft | modus ponen | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | John Davis had a history of identity theft | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then john davis had a history of identity theft, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, therefore john davis had a history of identity theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of financial problems then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, so john davis did not have a history of financial problems. | If john davis had a history of financial problems then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of financial problems | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of financial problems then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, so john davis did not have a history of financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, which implies that the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data. | If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then john davis had a history of identity theft | John davis did not have a history of identity theft | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | modus tollen | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | John Davis had a history of identity theft | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, which implies that 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 laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a gas leak was detected in the basement, and a gas leak was not detected in the basement, which implies that laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer. | If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a gas leak was detected in the basement | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | modus tollen | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | A gas leak was detected in the basement | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a gas leak was detected in the basement, and a gas leak was not detected in the basement, which implies that laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, so it can be concluded that a security camera captured the suspect entering the building. | If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building | Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | modus ponen | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | 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 sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, 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 hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the victim's name is laura martinez, and a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, therefore the victim's name is laura martinez. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the victim's name is laura martinez | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | modus ponen | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the victim's name is laura martinez, and a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, therefore the victim's name is laura martinez.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, so it can be concluded that laura's jewelry box was emptied. | If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then laura's jewelry box was emptied | Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | modus ponen | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then laura's jewelry box was emptied, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, so it can be concluded that laura's jewelry box was emptied.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store 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, thus officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store. | If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store 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 | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | modus tollen | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store 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, thus officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, and a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, so it can be concluded that emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask. | If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | modus tollen | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect'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 emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, and a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, so it can be concluded that emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's name is john davis, as if john davis had a history of identity theft then the suspect's name is john davis and john davis had a history of identity theft. | If john davis had a history of identity theft then the suspect's name is john davis | John davis had a history of identity theft | The suspect's name is John Davis | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of identity theft | The suspect's name is John Davis | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | 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 suspect's name is john davis, as if john davis had a history of identity theft then the suspect's name is john davis and john davis had a history of identity theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, and detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, which shows that the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems. | If the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk | Detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | 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 detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, and detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, which shows that the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which implies that john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest. | If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | modus ponen | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which implies that john davis had 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 broken window was found in laura's bedroom then the dog is barking, and the dog is not barking, hence no broken window was found in laura's bedroom. | If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then the dog is barking | The dog is not barking | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | modus tollen | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | The dog is barking | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | 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 broken window was found in laura's bedroom then the dog is barking, and the dog is not barking, hence no broken window was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is laughing at the toy then the baby is crying in the car, and the baby is not crying in the car, which implies that the baby is not laughing at the toy. | If the baby is laughing at the toy then the baby is crying in the car | The baby is not crying in the car | The baby is not laughing at the toy | modus tollen | The baby is laughing at the toy | The baby is crying in the car | The baby is not laughing at the toy | 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 baby is laughing at the toy then the baby is crying in the car, and the baby is not crying in the car, which implies that the baby is not 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 surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, which implies that laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone. | If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, which implies that laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, so no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, so no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, and the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, which shows that the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information. | If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | modus ponen | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, and the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, which shows that the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive 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 emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the book is a collection of short stories, and the book is not a collection of short stories, which establishes that emily had not recently taken a self-defense course. | If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the book is a collection of short stories | The book is not a collection of short stories | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | modus tollen | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The book is a collection of short stories | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | 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: ```If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the book is a collection of short stories, and the book is not a collection of short stories, which establishes that emily had not recently taken a self-defense course.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the computer is on, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, thus the computer is on. | If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the computer is on | A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | The computer is on | modus ponen | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | The computer is on | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | The computer is not on | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the computer is on, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, thus the computer is on.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is exciting then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument, which establishes that the movie is not exciting. | If the movie is exciting then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | The movie is not exciting | modus tollen | The movie is exciting | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | The movie is not exciting | 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 the movie is exciting then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument, which establishes that the movie is not exciting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, because if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the tree is tall and the tree is not tall. | If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the tree is tall | The tree is not tall | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | modus tollen | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | The tree is tall | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | The tree is not tall | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, because if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the tree is tall and 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|>
|
If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, therefore detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement. | If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | modus ponen | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, therefore detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, which implies that a strand of hair was found at the crime scene. | If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | modus ponen | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, which implies that a strand of hair was found 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 laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then the phone is ringing, and the phone is not ringing, which implies that laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis. | If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then the phone is ringing | The phone is not ringing | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | modus tollen | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | The phone is ringing | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | 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 martinez had a restraining order against john davis then the phone is ringing, and the phone is not ringing, which implies that laura martinez did not have a restraining order against 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|>
|
The sun is not shining brightly, because if the sun is shining brightly then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone. | If the sun is shining brightly then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | The sun is not shining brightly | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The sun is not shining brightly | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not shining brightly, because if the sun is shining brightly then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's garage door was left open then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and laura's garage door was left open, so surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house. | If laura's garage door was left open then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | Laura's garage door was left open | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | modus ponen | Laura's garage door was left open | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | Laura's garage door was not left open | 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 laura's garage door was left open then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and laura's garage door was left open, so 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|>
|
Detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, since if detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the cat is grooming itself and the cat is not grooming itself. | If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the cat is grooming itself | The cat is not grooming itself | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | modus tollen | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The cat is grooming itself | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The cat is not grooming itself | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, since if detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the cat is grooming itself and the cat is not grooming itself.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the football is round, and the football is not round, which establishes that no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim. | If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the football is round | The football is not round | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | modus tollen | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The football is round | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The football is not round | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the football is round, and the football is not round, which establishes that no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, thus detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement. | If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | modus tollen | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, thus detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring loudly then the book is a romance novel, and the book is not a romance novel, which shows that the cat is not purring loudly. | If the cat is purring loudly then the book is a romance novel | The book is not a romance novel | The cat is not purring loudly | modus tollen | The cat is purring loudly | The book is a romance novel | The cat is not purring loudly | The book is not a romance novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring loudly then the book is a romance novel, and the book is not a romance novel, which shows that the cat is not purring loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the neighbors then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and the dog is barking at the neighbors, which establishes that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft. | If the dog is barking at the neighbors then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | The dog is barking at the neighbors | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the neighbors | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the neighbors then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and the dog is barking at the neighbors, which establishes that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, hence the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim. | If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | modus ponen | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, hence the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, because if a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m. | If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | modus tollen | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, because if a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.```<|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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data, because if the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen and no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen. | If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | No cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | modus tollen | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | 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 computer had not been wiped clean of all data, because if the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen and no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the dog is barking at the stranger, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, therefore the dog is barking at the stranger. | If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the dog is barking at the stranger | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The dog is barking at the stranger | modus ponen | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The dog is barking at the stranger | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The dog is not barking at the stranger | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the dog is barking at the stranger, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, therefore the dog is barking at the stranger.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then the book is a romance novel, and the book is not a romance novel, thus the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery. | If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then the book is a romance novel | The book is not a romance novel | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | modus tollen | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The book is a romance novel | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | The book is not a romance novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then the book is a romance novel, and the book is not a romance novel, thus the security guard, marcus, was not 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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, therefore the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars. | If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | modus ponen | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, therefore the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, and the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, so it can be concluded that the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses. | If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | modus tollen | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | 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 the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, and the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, so it can be concluded that the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is a horror film, as if the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the movie is a horror film and the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror. | If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the movie is a horror film | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | The movie is a horror film | modus ponen | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | The movie is a horror film | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | The movie is not a horror film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is a horror film, as if the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the movie is a horror film and the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is shining, since if laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then the sun is shining and laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis. | If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then the sun is shining | Laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis | The sun is shining | modus ponen | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | The sun is shining | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | The sun is not shining | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is shining, since if laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then the sun is shining and laura martinez had a restraining order against 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's mail was tampered with then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's mail was tampered with, hence the arson occurred on elm street. | If laura's mail was tampered with then the arson occurred on elm street | Laura's mail was tampered with | The arson occurred on Elm Street | modus ponen | Laura's mail was tampered with | The arson occurred on Elm Street | Laura's mail was not tampered with | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's mail was tampered with then the arson occurred on elm street, and laura's mail was tampered with, hence the arson occurred on elm street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a biography then the weather is hot and humid, and the book is a biography, which shows that the weather is hot and humid. | If the book is a biography then the weather is hot and humid | The book is a biography | The weather is hot and humid | modus ponen | The book is a biography | The weather is hot and humid | The book is not a biography | The weather is not hot and humid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a biography then the weather is hot and humid, and the book is a biography, which shows that the weather is hot and humid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs 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, which establishes that john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs. | If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs 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 | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | modus tollen | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | 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 john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs 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, which establishes that john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents, since if john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain and the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain. | If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | modus tollen | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents, since if john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain and the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain.```<|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 exciting then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals, therefore the movie is not exciting. | If the movie is exciting then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | The movie is not exciting | modus tollen | The movie is exciting | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The movie is not exciting | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is exciting then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals, therefore the movie is not exciting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the movie is a comedy, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, therefore the movie is a comedy. | If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the movie is a comedy | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | The movie is a comedy | modus ponen | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The movie is a comedy | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The movie is not a comedy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then the movie is a comedy, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, therefore the movie is a comedy.```<|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 stalking laura then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, so john davis did not have a history of stalking laura. | If john davis had a history of stalking laura then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of stalking laura then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, so john davis did not have a history of stalking laura.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the arson occurred on elm street then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats, so the arson did not occur on elm street. | If the arson occurred on elm street then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | modus tollen | The arson occurred on Elm Street | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | 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: ```If the arson occurred on elm street then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats, so the arson did not occur on elm street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the cat is purring, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, so the cat is purring. | If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the cat is purring | Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The cat is purring | modus ponen | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The cat is purring | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The cat is not purring | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the cat is purring, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, so the cat is purring.```<|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.