Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street. stringlengths 74 421 | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street stringlengths 36 192 | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 788 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street stringclasses 788 values | modus ponen stringclasses 2 values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1 stringclasses 394 values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene stringclasses 394 values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street stringclasses 394 values | True bool 1 class | text stringlengths 453 800 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder, which establishes that the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect. | If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | Sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder, which establishes that the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the bird is singing then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and the bird is singing, so it can be concluded that a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house. | If the bird is singing then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | The bird is singing | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | modus ponen | The bird is singing | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The bird is not singing | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the bird is singing then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and the bird is singing, so it can be concluded that a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, so it can be concluded that no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder. | If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | modus tollen | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, so it can be concluded that no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, and the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery, so the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data. | If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | modus tollen | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity 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 the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, and the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery, so the victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and officer brown discovered a hidden basement, so emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder. | If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | Officer brown discovered a hidden basement | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | modus ponen | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and officer brown discovered a hidden basement, so emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cloudy and rainy then laura's passport is missing, and the weather is cloudy and rainy, which shows that laura's passport is missing. | If the weather is cloudy and rainy then laura's passport is missing | The weather is cloudy and rainy | Laura's passport is missing | modus ponen | The weather is cloudy and rainy | Laura's passport is missing | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | 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 weather is cloudy and rainy then laura's passport is missing, and the weather is cloudy and rainy, which shows that laura's passport is missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, since if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder. | If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | modus tollen | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, since if the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is not shining, as if the sun is shining then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction and a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction. | If the sun is shining then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction | A jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | The sun is not shining | modus tollen | The sun is shining | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | The sun is not shining | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not shining, as if the sun is shining then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction and a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had a restraining order against the suspect, as if the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation. | If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | modus ponen | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had a restraining order against the suspect, as if the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation.```<|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 victim's home the night of the murder then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, which shows that no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | No witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | modus tollen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, which shows that no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, which implies that the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization. | If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, and surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, which implies that the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a neighbor did not hear a gunshot, thus the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity. | If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then a neighbor heard a gunshot | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | modus tollen | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | A neighbor heard a gunshot | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | 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 taken out a large loan under a false identity then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a neighbor did not hear a gunshot, thus the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the door then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, and the dog is barking at the door, thus the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain. | If the dog is barking at the door then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The dog is barking at the door | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the door | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The dog is not barking at the door | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the door then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, and the dog is barking at the door, thus the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, so emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers. | If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers | modus tollen | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, so emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, since if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime. | If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | modus tollen | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, since if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, thus the stolen van was not registered in a fake name. | If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | modus tollen | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, thus the stolen van was not registered in a fake name.```<|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 trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization, therefore a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily. | If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | modus tollen | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization, therefore a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, thus john davis had a history of substance abuse. | If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then john davis had a history of substance abuse | A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | modus ponen | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, thus john davis had a history of substance abuse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a documentary then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, and the movie is a documentary, so the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead. | If the movie is a documentary then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The movie is a documentary | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | modus ponen | The movie is a documentary | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The movie is not a documentary | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a documentary then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, and the movie is a documentary, so the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's pet cat is missing then john davis has a history of violent behavior, and laura's pet cat is missing, thus john davis has a history of violent behavior. | If laura's pet cat is missing then john davis has a history of violent behavior | Laura's pet cat is missing | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | modus ponen | Laura's pet cat is missing | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | Laura's pet cat is not missing | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's pet cat is missing then john davis has a history of violent behavior, and laura's pet cat is missing, thus john davis has a history of violent behavior.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, as if the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home. | If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | modus ponen | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, as if the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, hence officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby. | If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | modus tollen | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, hence officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is moving then the apple is red, and the apple is not red, so it can be concluded that the car is not moving. | If the car is moving then the apple is red | The apple is not red | The car is not moving | modus tollen | The car is moving | The apple is red | The car is not moving | The apple is not red | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is moving then the apple is red, and the apple is not red, so it can be concluded that the car is not moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and the baby is not crawling towards the toy, so the sun is not shining. | If the sun is shining then the baby is crawling towards the toy | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | The sun is not shining | modus tollen | The sun is shining | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The sun is not shining | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and the baby is not crawling towards the toy, so the sun is not shining.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, thus a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | John davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | modus ponen | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | No security camera captured footage of the suspect 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 john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, thus a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, since if the victim's name is laura martinez then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization and the victim's name is laura martinez. | If the victim's name is laura martinez then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | The victim's name is laura martinez | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | modus ponen | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, since if the victim's name is laura martinez then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization and the victim's name is laura martinez.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then the baby is teething, and the baby is not teething, hence the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago. | If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then the baby is teething | The baby is not teething | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | modus tollen | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The baby is teething | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | The baby is not teething | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then the baby is teething, and the baby is not teething, hence the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago.```<|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 football is round then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument, which implies that the football is not round. | If the football is round then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | The football is not round | modus tollen | The football is round | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | The football is not round | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the football is round then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument, which implies that the football is not round.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, hence the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If laura's social media accounts were hacked then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus ponen | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's social media accounts were hacked then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, hence the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the pizza is hot then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and the pizza is hot, thus a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene. | If the pizza is hot then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The pizza is hot | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | modus ponen | The pizza is hot | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The pizza is not hot | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the pizza is hot then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and the pizza is hot, thus a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously 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 jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, hence the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased. | If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | modus tollen | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, hence the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased.```<|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 sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and the book is on the bestseller list, which shows that sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing. | If the book is on the bestseller list then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | The book is on the bestseller list | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | modus ponen | The book is on the bestseller list | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | The book is not on the bestseller list | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the bestseller list then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and the book is on the bestseller list, which shows that sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had a restraining order against the suspect, because if the movie is a documentary then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect and the movie is a documentary. | If the movie is a documentary then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The movie is a documentary | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | modus ponen | The movie is a documentary | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The movie is not a documentary | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had a restraining order against the suspect, because if the movie is a documentary then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect and the movie is a documentary.```<|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 drama then laura's pet cat is missing, and the movie is a drama, so laura's pet cat is missing. | If the movie is a drama then laura's pet cat is missing | The movie is a drama | Laura's pet cat is missing | modus ponen | The movie is a drama | Laura's pet cat is missing | The movie is not a drama | Laura's pet cat is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a drama then laura's pet cat is missing, and the movie is a drama, so laura's pet cat is missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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, so it can be concluded that the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years. | If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the 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 victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | modus tollen | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | 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 victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years 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, so it can be concluded that the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of substance abuse then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, which implies that john davis did not have a history of substance abuse. | If john davis had a history of substance abuse then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of substance abuse then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, which implies that john davis did not have a history of substance abuse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, as if the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim. | If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, as if the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal and the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, so a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property. | If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | modus ponen | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | 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 claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, so a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, because if sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions 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 laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | modus ponen | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | 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: ```Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, because if sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions 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|>
|
If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the sun is shining brightly, and the sun is not shining brightly, so it can be concluded that the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization. | If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the sun is shining brightly | The sun is not shining brightly | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | modus tollen | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | The sun is shining brightly | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | The sun is not shining brightly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the sun is shining brightly, and the sun is not shining brightly, so it can be concluded that the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, and detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, therefore a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop. | If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | Detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | modus tollen | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry 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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, and detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, therefore 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 the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the apple is red, and the apple is not red, which shows that the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime. | If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the apple is red | The apple is not red | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | modus tollen | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The apple is red | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | The apple is not red | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the apple is red, and the apple is not red, which shows that the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and the suspect's name is john davis, which shows that a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder. | If the suspect's name is john davis then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The suspect's name is john davis | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | modus ponen | The suspect's name is John Davis | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The suspect's name is not John Davis | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's name is john davis then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and the suspect's name is john davis, which shows that a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a sedan then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, which shows that the car is not a sedan. | If the car is a sedan then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | The car is not a sedan | modus tollen | The car is a sedan | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | The car is not a sedan | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a sedan then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, which shows that the car is not a sedan.```<|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 a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, hence surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house. | If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, hence surveillance footage does not show 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|>
|
Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, since if laura's social media accounts were hacked then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily and laura's social media accounts were hacked. | If laura's social media accounts were hacked then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | modus ponen | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, since if laura's social media accounts were hacked then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily and laura's social media accounts were hacked.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, so it can be concluded that john davis had scratches on his arms and neck. | If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | modus ponen | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, so it can be concluded that john davis had scratches on his arms and neck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, so it can be concluded that sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy. | If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | modus tollen | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | 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 sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, so it can be concluded that sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, therefore no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence. | If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | modus tollen | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, therefore no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is drinking from a bottle then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization, thus the baby is not drinking from a bottle. | If the baby is drinking from a bottle then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | modus tollen | The baby is drinking from a bottle | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is drinking from a bottle then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization, thus the baby is not drinking from a bottle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, which establishes that laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident. | If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | modus ponen | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, which establishes that laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, since if detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard. | If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | modus ponen | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, since if detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's 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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the book is a biography, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, which establishes that the book is a biography. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the book is a biography | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | The book is a biography | modus ponen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | The book is a biography | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | The book is not a biography | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then the book is a biography, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, which establishes that the book is a biography.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, as if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, as if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and laura's prescription medications were not stolen, therefore sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily. | If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then laura's prescription medications were stolen | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | modus tollen | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then laura's prescription medications were stolen, and laura's prescription medications were not stolen, therefore sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, as if john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents. | If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | modus ponen | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | 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 reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, as if john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the movie is a horror film, and the movie is not a horror film, which shows that no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the movie is a horror film | The movie is not a horror film | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | modus tollen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | The movie is a horror film | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | The movie is not a horror film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the movie is a horror film, and the movie is not a horror film, which shows that no stolen necklace was found in marcus's 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 homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the sky is blue, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, which shows that the sky is blue. | If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the sky is blue | A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo | The sky is blue | modus ponen | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | The sky is blue | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | The sky is not blue | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the sky is blue, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, which shows that the sky is blue.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, because if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder. | If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | modus tollen | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, because if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder and a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, because if the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo and a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo. | If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo | A homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | modus tollen | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail, because if the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo and a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then laura's passport is missing, and laura's passport is not missing, thus no security camera captured the suspect entering the building. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then laura's passport is missing | Laura's passport is not missing | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | modus tollen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | Laura's passport is missing | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | 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 a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then laura's passport is missing, and laura's passport is not missing, thus no security camera captured the suspect entering the building.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene. | If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | modus ponen | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair 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 sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sky is blue then the book is a romance novel, and the sky is blue, which establishes that the book is a romance novel. | If the sky is blue then the book is a romance novel | The sky is blue | The book is a romance novel | modus ponen | The sky is blue | The book is a romance novel | The sky is not blue | The book is not a romance novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sky is blue then the book is a romance novel, and the sky is blue, which establishes that the book is a romance novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and john davis had bruises on his arms, which shows that the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home. | If john davis had bruises on his arms then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | John davis had bruises on his arms | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | modus ponen | John Davis had bruises on his arms | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had bruises on his arms then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and john davis had bruises on his arms, which shows that the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the bestseller list then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and the book is on the bestseller list, hence laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions. | If the book is on the bestseller list then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | The book is on the bestseller list | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | modus ponen | The book is on the bestseller list | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | The book is not on the bestseller list | 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 book is on the bestseller list then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and the book is on the bestseller list, hence laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is written by a famous author, since if a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then the book is written by a famous author and a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene. | If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then the book is written by a famous author | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The book is written by a famous author | modus ponen | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The book is written by a famous author | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is written by a famous author, since if a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then the book is written by a famous author and a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, since if a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | 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 a suspicious van | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, since if a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van and laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van.```<|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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, therefore no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings. | If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | modus tollen | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | 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 max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, therefore no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, as if a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim. | If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | modus tollen | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | 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: ```No witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, as if a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, because if a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then the sky is blue and the sky is not blue. | If a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then the sky is blue | The sky is not blue | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | modus tollen | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | The sky is blue | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | The sky is not blue | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, because if a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow then the sky is blue and the sky is not blue.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a hybrid then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and the car is a hybrid, therefore john davis had a history of substance abuse. | If the car is a hybrid then john davis had a history of substance abuse | The car is a hybrid | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | modus ponen | The car is a hybrid | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | The car is not a hybrid | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a hybrid then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and the car is a hybrid, therefore john davis had a history of substance abuse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness heard screams coming from laura's house, since if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house | A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | modus ponen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | 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: ```A witness heard screams coming from laura's house, since if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a family film then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, and the movie is a family film, so it can be concluded that the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead. | If the movie is a family film then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The movie is a family film | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | modus ponen | The movie is a family film | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The movie is not a family film | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a family film then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, and the movie is a family film, so it can be concluded that the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.```<|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 fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, as if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then laura's laptop was found smashed and laura's laptop was not found smashed. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then laura's laptop was found smashed | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | modus tollen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | Laura's laptop was found smashed | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, as if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then laura's laptop was found smashed and laura's laptop was not found smashed.```<|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 diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, so a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene. | If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | modus ponen | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, so a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk, therefore the baby is not teething. | If the baby is teething then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | The baby is not teething | modus tollen | The baby is teething | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The baby is not teething | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk, therefore the baby is not teething.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the dog is barking loudly, and the dog is not barking loudly, so it can be concluded that no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the dog is barking loudly | The dog is not barking loudly | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The dog is barking loudly | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The dog is not barking loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the dog is barking loudly, and the dog is not barking loudly, so it can be concluded that no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, because if a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery and the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery. | If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | modus tollen | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity 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: ```No threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, because if a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery and the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity 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|>
|
If the baby is playing with toys then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, so the baby is not playing with toys. | If the baby is playing with toys then the baby is teething on a toy | The baby is not teething on a toy | The baby is not playing with toys | modus tollen | The baby is playing with toys | The baby is teething on a toy | The baby is not playing with toys | The baby is not teething on a toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with toys then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, so the baby is not playing with toys.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining then the victim's name is laura martinez, and the victim's name is not laura martinez, so it can be concluded that the sun is not shining. | If the sun is shining then the victim's name is laura martinez | The victim's name is not laura martinez | The sun is not shining | modus tollen | The sun is shining | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | The sun is not shining | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining then the victim's name is laura martinez, and the victim's name is not laura martinez, so it can be concluded that the sun is not shining.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is parked in the garage then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, and the victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, which implies that the car is not parked in the garage. | If the car is parked in the garage then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The car is not parked in the garage | modus tollen | The car is parked in the garage | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The car is not parked in the garage | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is parked in the garage then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, and the victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, which implies that the car is not parked in the garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, because if a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation and the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation. | If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | modus tollen | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, because if a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation and the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, as if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | modus ponen | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, as if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing 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 baby is crawling then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the baby is not crawling. | If the baby is crawling then the arson occurred on elm street | The arson did not occur on elm street | The baby is not crawling | modus tollen | The baby is crawling | The arson occurred on Elm Street | The baby is not crawling | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the baby is not crawling.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, thus a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings. | If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings | The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | modus ponen | The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, thus a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was 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 eiffel tower is in paris then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and the eiffel tower is in paris, which establishes that a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If the eiffel tower is in paris then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | The eiffel tower is in paris | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus ponen | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | 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 the eiffel tower is in paris then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and the eiffel tower is in paris, which establishes that 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|>
|
Surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, as if surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public. | If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, as if surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public and 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 a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, and the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement, which shows that no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence. | If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | modus tollen | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, and the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement, which shows that no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is setting slowly, as if the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the sun is setting slowly and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident. | If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the sun is setting slowly | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The sun is setting slowly | modus ponen | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The sun is setting slowly | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | 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: ```The sun is setting slowly, as if the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the sun is setting slowly and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, thus the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim. | If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | modus ponen | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, thus the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, as if the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car and no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car. | If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car | No bloody shirt was found in john davis's car | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | modus tollen | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | 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 family had not been estranged from the suspect for years, as if the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car and no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the football is round, and the football is not round, hence surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery. | If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the football is round | The football is not round | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The football is round | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The football is not round | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery then the football is round, and the football is not round, hence surveillance footage does not show 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|>
|
If john davis was found with a bag of cash then the dog is barking at the stranger, and the dog is not barking at the stranger, so it can be concluded that john davis was not found with a bag of cash. | If john davis was found with a bag of cash then the dog is barking at the stranger | The dog is not barking at the stranger | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | modus tollen | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | The dog is barking at the stranger | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | The dog is not barking at the stranger | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was found with a bag of cash then the dog is barking at the stranger, and the dog is not barking at the stranger, so it can be concluded that john davis was not found with a bag of cash.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a thriller then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, which implies that the movie is not a thriller. | If the movie is a thriller then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | John davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | The movie is not a thriller | modus tollen | The movie is a thriller | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | The movie is not a thriller | 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 thriller then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, which implies that the movie is not a thriller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, as if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then laura had installed a home security system and laura had not installed a home security system. | If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then laura had installed a home security system | Laura had not installed a home security system | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | modus tollen | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | Laura had installed a home security system | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | Laura had not installed a home security system | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, as if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then laura had installed a home security system and laura had not installed a home security system.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, since if laura's social media accounts were hacked then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data and laura's social media accounts were hacked. | If laura's social media accounts were hacked then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | modus ponen | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, since if laura's social media accounts were hacked then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data and laura's social media accounts were hacked.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then the baby is crying in the car, and the baby is not crying in the car, which shows that sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily. | If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then the baby is crying in the car | The baby is not crying in the car | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | modus tollen | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | The baby is crying in the car | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | 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 sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then the baby is crying in the car, and the baby is not crying in the car, which shows that sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, hence john davis did not have bruises on his arms. | If john davis had bruises on his arms then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | modus tollen | John Davis had bruises on his arms | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had bruises on his arms then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, hence john davis did not have bruises on his arms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, as if a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store. | If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | modus ponen | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | 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 figure in a clown mask approaching the store, as if a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, since if laura's dog was found locked in a closet then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data. | If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | modus tollen | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, since if laura's dog was found locked in a closet then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.