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 officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, which establishes that surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery. | If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | modus ponen | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, and officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, which establishes that surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, since if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store. | If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | 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: ```A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, since if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching 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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, thus witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist. | If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | modus tollen | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days 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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, thus witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.```<|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 laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, so no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | modus tollen | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, so no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the cat is grooming itself, and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, which establishes that the cat is grooming itself. | If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the cat is grooming itself | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The cat is grooming itself | modus ponen | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The cat is grooming itself | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The cat is not grooming itself | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the cat is grooming itself, and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, which establishes that the cat is 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the building then water is h2o, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, which implies that water is h2o. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then water is h2o | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | Water is H2O | modus ponen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | Water is H2O | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | Water is not H2O | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then water is h2o, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, which implies that water is h2o.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the phone is ringing then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and the sun is not shining brightly overhead, so the phone is not ringing. | If the phone is ringing then the sun is shining brightly overhead | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | The phone is not ringing | modus tollen | The phone is ringing | The sun is shining brightly overhead | The phone is not ringing | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the phone is ringing then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and the sun is not shining brightly overhead, so the phone is not ringing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The pizza is hot, as if the book is written by a famous author then the pizza is hot and the book is written by a famous author. | If the book is written by a famous author then the pizza is hot | The book is written by a famous author | The pizza is hot | modus ponen | The book is written by a famous author | The pizza is hot | The book is not written by a famous author | The pizza is not hot | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The pizza is hot, as if the book is written by a famous author then the pizza is hot and the book is written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain 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, so the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain. | If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain 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 | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | modus tollen | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain 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, so 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 a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, and the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, which establishes that no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | modus tollen | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | 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 hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, and the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, which establishes that no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, which establishes that officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store. | If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | modus ponen | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, which establishes that officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which establishes that surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house. | If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | modus ponen | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | 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 a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which establishes that surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, and detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, so a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat. | If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | Detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | modus tollen | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | 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 recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, and detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, so a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, as if a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter and detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter | Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, as if a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter and detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter.```<|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 washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and john davis had not recently purchased a firearm, so detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk. | If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then john davis had recently purchased a firearm | John davis had not recently purchased a firearm | Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | modus tollen | Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | 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 detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and john davis had not recently purchased a firearm, so detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the cat is purring loudly, and the cat is not purring loudly, which implies that no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the cat is purring loudly | The cat is not purring loudly | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | modus tollen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | The cat is purring loudly | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | The cat is not purring loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then the cat is purring loudly, and the cat is not purring loudly, which implies that no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public.```<|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 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, therefore laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis. | If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis 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 | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | modus tollen | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | 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 laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis 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, therefore 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|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, so emily had recently taken a self-defense course. | If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, so emily had recently taken a self-defense course.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, since if the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities. | If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, since if the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had recently purchased a firearm, as if the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then john davis had recently purchased a firearm and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment. | If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then john davis had recently purchased a firearm | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | modus ponen | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | 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: ```John davis had recently purchased a firearm, as if the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then john davis had recently purchased a firearm and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, therefore a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings. | If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | modus tollen | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | 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 a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, therefore a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the tree is tall, and the tree is not tall, which implies that the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain. | If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the tree is tall | The tree is not tall | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | modus tollen | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The tree is tall | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | 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: ```If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then the tree is tall, and the tree is not tall, which implies that 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 book is a biography then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, and the book is a biography, hence john davis had a history of violating restraining orders. | If the book is a biography then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders | The book is a biography | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | modus ponen | The book is a biography | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | The book is not a biography | 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: ```If the book is a biography then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, and the book is a biography, hence john davis had 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 the dog is barking at the stranger then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and the dog is barking at the stranger, therefore a strand of hair was found at the crime scene. | If the dog is barking at the stranger then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The dog is barking at the stranger | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the stranger | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The dog is not barking at the stranger | 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 dog is barking at the stranger then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and the dog is barking at the stranger, therefore 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 the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and the sun is not shining brightly overhead, so the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive. | If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the sun is shining brightly overhead | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | modus tollen | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The sun is shining brightly overhead | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | 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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and the sun is not shining brightly overhead, so the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.```<|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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and laura did not have a secret storage room in her house, which shows that no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then laura had a secret storage room in her house | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus tollen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and laura did not have a secret storage room in her house, which shows that no 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 a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, hence a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene. | If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | modus tollen | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, and the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, hence a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, so a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car. | If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | modus ponen | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | 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 the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, so 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 forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, so the cat is purring contentedly on my lap. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | modus ponen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | 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 a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, so 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 john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, which implies that john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders. | If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | 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 john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, which implies that john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a horror film then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and the movie is a horror film, therefore john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest. | If the movie is a horror film then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | The movie is a horror film | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | modus ponen | The movie is a horror film | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | The movie is not a horror film | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a horror film then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and the movie is a horror film, therefore 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|>
|
Water is not h2o, because if water is h2o then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout and emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout. | If water is h2o then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | Water is not H2O | modus tollen | Water is H2O | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | Water is not H2O | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Water is not h2o, because if water is h2o then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout and emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the dog is not barking at the neighbors, which shows that a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene. | If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the dog is barking at the neighbors | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The dog is barking at the neighbors | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the dog is not barking at the neighbors, which shows that a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask 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|>
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk, as if the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk 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 the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk 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 | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | 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: ```The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk, as if the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk 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|>
|
If the apple is red then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the apple is red, thus the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect. | If the apple is red then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The apple is red | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | modus ponen | The apple is red | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The apple is not red | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the apple is red then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the apple is red, thus the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted, so a bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door. | If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | modus tollen | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted, so a bloody handprint was not found on sarah's car door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, thus officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store. | If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then 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 found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | modus ponen | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | 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 | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, thus officer turner found 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 the car is parked on the street then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, thus the car is not parked on the street. | If the car is parked on the street then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The car is not parked on the street | modus tollen | The car is parked on the street | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The car is not parked on the street | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is parked on the street then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, thus the car is not parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, which establishes that laura had a history of changing her locks frequently. | If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | modus ponen | Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, and detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, which establishes that laura had a history of changing her locks frequently.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and john davis did not have a history of anger management issues, hence a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then john davis had a history of anger management issues | John davis did not have a history of anger management issues | 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 history of anger management issues | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and john davis did not have a history of anger management issues, hence a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and john davis had not recently purchased a firearm, therefore a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then john davis had recently purchased a firearm | John davis had not recently purchased a firearm | 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 recently purchased a firearm | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and john davis had not recently purchased a firearm, therefore a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the bestseller list then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, so it can be concluded that the book is not on the bestseller list. | If the book is on the bestseller list then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The book is not on the bestseller list | modus tollen | The book is on the bestseller list | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The book is not on the bestseller list | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the bestseller list then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, so it can be concluded that the book is not on the bestseller list.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sally is older than john, because if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then sally is older than john and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store. | If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then sally is older than john | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Sally is older than John | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Sally is older than John | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Sally is not older than John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sally is older than john, because if surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then sally is older than john and surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near 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|>
|
Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, because if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions. | If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | modus ponen | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, because if the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the tree is tall, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, which establishes that the tree is tall. | If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the tree is tall | A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | The tree is tall | modus ponen | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | The tree is tall | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | 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: ```If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then the tree is tall, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, which establishes that the tree is 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 the dog is barking at the mailman then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and the dog is barking at the mailman, which establishes that a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | The dog is barking at the mailman | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the mailman | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The dog is not barking at the mailman | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and the dog is barking at the mailman, which establishes that a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the car is parked in the garage, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, so it can be concluded that the car is parked in the garage. | If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the car is parked in the garage | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | The car is parked in the garage | modus ponen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | The car is parked in the garage | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | The car is not parked in the garage | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the car is parked in the garage, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, so it can be concluded that the car is 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 the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then paris is in france, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, therefore paris is in france. | If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then paris is in france | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | Paris is in France | modus ponen | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | Paris is in France | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | Paris is not in France | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then paris is in france, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, therefore paris is in france.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and the dog is barking at the mailman, which implies that a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The dog is barking at the mailman | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the mailman | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The dog is not barking at the mailman | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and the dog is barking at the mailman, which implies that a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, which establishes that emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate. | If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | modus ponen | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, which establishes that emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, so a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, so a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.```<|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 movie is a musical film, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, thus the movie is a musical film. | If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the movie is a musical film | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The movie is a musical film | modus ponen | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The movie is a musical film | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The movie is not a musical film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the movie is a musical film, and emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, thus the movie is a musical film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, therefore a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession. | If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the sun is setting slowly | The sun is not setting slowly | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | modus tollen | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The sun is setting slowly | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | The sun is not setting slowly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, therefore a handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of financial problems then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, and laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident, which shows that john davis did not have a history of financial problems. | If john davis had a history of financial problems then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of financial problems | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of financial problems then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, and laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident, which shows that 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 a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, and laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, which establishes that no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard. | If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | modus tollen | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, and laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, which establishes that no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, thus emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop. | If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | modus ponen | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, thus emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, and the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns, which implies that no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office. | If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | modus tollen | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, and the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns, which implies that no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim'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|>
|
John davis had a secret storage unit, because if laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then john davis had a secret storage unit and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker. | If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then john davis had a secret storage unit | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | John Davis had a secret storage unit | modus ponen | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | John Davis had a secret storage unit | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | 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: ```John davis had a secret storage unit, because if laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then john davis had a secret storage unit and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, therefore the cat is sleeping on the couch. | If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the cat is sleeping on the couch | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | The cat is sleeping on the couch | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | The cat is sleeping on the couch | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, therefore the cat is sleeping on the couch.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring contentedly then the baby is crying in the car, and the cat is purring contentedly, thus the baby is crying in the car. | If the cat is purring contentedly then the baby is crying in the car | The cat is purring contentedly | The baby is crying in the car | modus ponen | The cat is purring contentedly | The baby is crying in the car | The cat is not purring contentedly | 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 cat is purring contentedly then the baby is crying in the car, and the cat is purring contentedly, thus the baby is crying in the car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If it is raining today then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, and it is raining today, which implies that the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder. | If it is raining today then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | It is raining today | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | modus ponen | It is raining today | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | It is not raining today | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If it is raining today then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, and it is raining today, which implies that the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the sun is setting slowly, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which establishes that the sun is setting slowly. | If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the sun is setting slowly | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The sun is setting slowly | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The sun is setting slowly | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The sun is not setting slowly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the sun is setting slowly, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which establishes that the sun is setting slowly.```<|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 missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, because if sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death. | If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | modus ponen | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | 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 missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, because if sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, as if laura had a secret storage room in her house then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo and laura had a secret storage room in her house. | If laura had a secret storage room in her house then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | modus ponen | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, as if laura had a secret storage room in her house then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo and laura had a secret storage room in her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, therefore laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | modus tollen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, therefore laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the dog is barking at the dog next door, and the dog is not barking at the dog next door, therefore no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene. | If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the dog is barking at the dog next door | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | modus tollen | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The dog is barking at the dog next door | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the dog is barking at the dog next door, and the dog is not barking at the dog next door, therefore no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | modus tollen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | 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: ```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft and 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|>
|
Laura's wedding ring is missing, since if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then laura's wedding ring is missing and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car. | If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then laura's wedding ring is missing | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | Laura's wedding ring is missing | modus ponen | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | Laura's wedding ring is missing | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | Laura's wedding ring 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: ```Laura's wedding ring is missing, since if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then laura's wedding ring is missing and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck, because if the dog is barking at the mail truck then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop. | If the dog is barking at the mail truck then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mail truck | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is not barking at the mail truck, because if the dog is barking at the mail truck then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop.```<|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 chair was found in the kitchen then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, so sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy. | If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | modus ponen | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, so sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, since if a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then laura's passport is missing and laura's passport is not missing. | If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then laura's passport is missing | Laura's passport is not missing | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | modus tollen | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | Laura's passport is missing | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | Laura's passport is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, since if a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then laura's passport is missing and laura's passport is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, since if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns. | If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | modus ponen | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | 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: ```Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, since if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store and the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, which establishes that the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect. | If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, which establishes that the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, hence laura's personal files were deleted from her computer. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | modus ponen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, hence laura's personal files were deleted from her computer.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, which implies that no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus tollen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | 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 bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, which implies that no 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 store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted. | If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | modus tollen | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | Officer Smith did not find a broken window 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 store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the movie is a sports film, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, which establishes that the movie is a sports film. | If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the movie is a sports film | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | The movie is a sports film | modus ponen | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | The movie is a sports film | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | The movie is not a sports film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the movie is a sports film, and witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, which establishes that the movie is a sports film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a collection of short stories then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, which shows that the book is not a collection of short stories. | If the book is a collection of short stories then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | The book is not a collection of short stories | modus tollen | The book is a collection of short stories | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The book is not a collection of short stories | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a collection of short stories then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, which shows that the book is not a collection of short stories.```<|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, because if a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer and laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | 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 | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | 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, because if a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer and laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, which implies that a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car. | If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home | A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | modus tollen | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | 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 the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, which implies that a neighbor did not report 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 the cat is sleeping soundly then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and the cat is sleeping soundly, hence sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy. | If the cat is sleeping soundly then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The cat is sleeping soundly | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | modus ponen | The cat is sleeping soundly | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The cat is not sleeping soundly | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping soundly then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and the cat is sleeping soundly, hence sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, so it can be concluded that detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement. | If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | modus tollen | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, so it can be concluded that detective bennett did not discover 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 suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, which establishes that the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools. | If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | Detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, which establishes that the suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had recently purchased a firearm 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 john davis had not recently purchased a firearm. | If john davis had recently purchased a firearm 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 | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | modus tollen | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | 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 john davis had recently purchased a firearm 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 john davis had not 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|>
|
A neighbor did not hear a gunshot, as if a neighbor heard a gunshot then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument. | If a neighbor heard a gunshot then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | modus tollen | A neighbor heard a gunshot | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | 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: ```A neighbor did not hear a gunshot, as if a neighbor heard a gunshot then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument and 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|>
|
The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror, because if the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the baby is sleeping and the baby is not sleeping. | If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the baby is sleeping | The baby is not sleeping | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | modus tollen | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | The baby is sleeping | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | The baby is not sleeping | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror, because if the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the baby is sleeping and the baby is not sleeping.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a documentary then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and the movie is a documentary, which implies that surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery. | If the movie is a documentary then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The movie is a documentary | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | modus ponen | The movie is a documentary | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The movie is not a documentary | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after 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 the movie is a documentary then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and the movie is a documentary, which implies that surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cold and rainy then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, hence the weather is not cold and rainy. | If the weather is cold and rainy then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | The weather is not cold and rainy | modus tollen | The weather is cold and rainy | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | The weather is not cold and rainy | 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 the weather is cold and rainy then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, hence the weather is not cold and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, which shows that the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail. | If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | modus ponen | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, which shows that the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, which implies that the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then john davis had a history of stalking laura | John davis did not have a history of stalking laura | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, which implies that the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If dogs are not fish then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, so it can be concluded that dogs are fish. | If dogs are not fish then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | Dogs are fish | modus tollen | Dogs are not fish | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Dogs are fish | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If dogs are not fish then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, so it can be concluded that dogs are fish.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the bestseller list then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, thus the book is not on the bestseller list. | If the book is on the bestseller list then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | The book is not on the bestseller list | modus tollen | The book is on the bestseller list | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The book is not on the bestseller list | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the bestseller list then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, thus the book is not on the bestseller list.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's name is laura martinez then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, which establishes that the victim's name is not laura martinez. | If the victim's name is laura martinez then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | modus tollen | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's name is laura martinez then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, which establishes that the victim's name is not laura martinez.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, thus a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus ponen | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, thus a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the tree is shedding leaves, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, which shows that the tree is shedding leaves. | If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the tree is shedding leaves | A neighbor heard a gunshot | The tree is shedding leaves | modus ponen | A neighbor heard a gunshot | The tree is shedding leaves | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | The tree is not shedding leaves | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the tree is shedding leaves, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, which shows that the tree is shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The car is parked on the street, as if the suspect's name is john davis then the car is parked on the street and the suspect's name is john davis. | If the suspect's name is john davis then the car is parked on the street | The suspect's name is john davis | The car is parked on the street | modus ponen | The suspect's name is John Davis | The car is parked on the street | The suspect's name is not John Davis | The car is not parked on the street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is parked on the street, as if the suspect's name is john davis then the car is parked on the street and the suspect's name is 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|>
|
A broken window was found in laura's bedroom, because if a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night. | If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A broken window was found in laura's bedroom, because if a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and no witness heard screams coming from laura's house, which establishes that laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone. | If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house | No witness heard screams coming from laura's house | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | modus tollen | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and no witness heard screams coming from laura's house, which establishes that 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 the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then laura's passport is missing, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, which implies that laura's passport is missing. | If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then laura's passport is missing | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | Laura's passport is missing | modus ponen | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | Laura's passport is missing | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | Laura's passport is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then laura's passport is missing, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, which implies that laura's passport is missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder, which establishes that the suspect's name is not john davis. | If the suspect's name is john davis then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder | The suspect's name is not John Davis | modus tollen | The suspect's name is John Davis | The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | The suspect's name is not John Davis | The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's name is john davis then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder, which establishes that the suspect's name is not john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.