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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, since if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
modus ponen
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river
|
The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions
| 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 social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, since if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, since if the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the cat is purring loudly and the cat is not purring loudly.
|
If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the cat is purring loudly
|
The cat is not purring loudly
|
The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
|
modus tollen
|
The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
|
The cat is purring loudly
|
The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
|
The cat is not purring loudly
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, since if the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the cat is purring loudly and the cat is not purring loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and the sun is setting, hence john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs.
|
If the sun is setting then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
|
The sun is setting
|
John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
|
modus ponen
|
The sun is setting
|
John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs
|
The sun is not setting
|
John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and the sun is setting, hence john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The tree is tall, because if a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the tree is tall and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building.
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the tree is tall
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The tree is tall
|
modus ponen
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The tree is tall
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The tree is not tall
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The tree is tall, because if a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the tree is tall and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, so the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.
|
If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire
|
The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire
|
The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
|
Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, so the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the 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 weather is cold and rainy then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the weather is cold and rainy, so it can be concluded that the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder.
|
If the weather is cold and rainy then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
The weather is cold and rainy
|
The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
The weather is cold and rainy
|
The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
The weather is not cold and rainy
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and rainy then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the weather is cold and rainy, so it can be concluded that the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is shedding leaves then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which implies that the tree is not shedding leaves.
|
If the tree is shedding leaves then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
|
A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
|
The tree is not shedding leaves
|
modus tollen
|
The tree is shedding leaves
|
A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
|
The tree is not shedding leaves
|
A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is shedding leaves then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, which implies that the tree is not shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
It is not raining today, because if it is raining today then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment and no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.
|
If it is raining today then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
It is not raining today
|
modus tollen
|
It is raining today
|
A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
|
It is not raining today
|
No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```It is not raining today, because if it is raining today then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment and no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim'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|>
|
No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, as if a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest.
|
If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
modus tollen
|
A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest
|
No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, as if a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest.```<|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 water is warm then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the water is warm, so the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.
|
If the water is warm then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
The water is warm
|
The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
modus ponen
|
The water is warm
|
The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
The water is not warm
|
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: ```If the water is warm then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the water is warm, so the victim's missing laptop contained 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|>
|
Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, since if john davis had a secret storage unit then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine and john davis had a secret storage unit.
|
If john davis had a secret storage unit then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
|
John davis had a secret storage unit
|
Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a secret storage unit
|
Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine
|
John Davis did not have a secret storage unit
|
Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine, since if john davis had a secret storage unit then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine and john davis had a secret storage unit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking then the baby is crying, and the baby is not crying, hence the dog is not barking.
|
If the dog is barking then the baby is crying
|
The baby is not crying
|
The dog is not barking
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking
|
The baby is crying
|
The dog is not barking
|
The baby is not crying
| 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 then the baby is crying, and the baby is not crying, hence the dog is not barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, hence no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.
|
If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits
|
A homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
|
No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
|
modus tollen
|
A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
|
A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits
|
No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
|
A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, hence no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, as if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest and the sun is setting slowly in the sky.
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
modus ponen
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
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: ```John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, as if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest and the sun is setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sky is blue then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death, hence the sky is not blue.
|
If the sky is blue then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death
|
Sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
|
The sky is not blue
|
modus tollen
|
The sky is blue
|
Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death
|
The sky is not blue
|
Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death
| 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 sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death, hence 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 dogs are not fish then laura's garage door was left open, and dogs are not fish, so laura's garage door was left open.
|
If dogs are not fish then laura's garage door was left open
|
Dogs are not fish
|
Laura's garage door was left open
|
modus ponen
|
Dogs are not fish
|
Laura's garage door was left open
|
Dogs are fish
|
Laura's garage door was not left open
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If dogs are not fish then laura's garage door was left open, and dogs are not fish, so laura's garage door was left open.```<|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 secret storage unit then the car is parked on the street, and john davis had a secret storage unit, hence the car is parked on the street.
|
If john davis had a secret storage unit then the car is parked on the street
|
John davis had a secret storage unit
|
The car is parked on the street
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a secret storage unit
|
The car is parked on the street
|
John Davis did not have a secret storage unit
|
The car is not parked on the street
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a secret storage unit then the car is parked on the street, and john davis had a secret storage unit, hence the car is parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction, therefore 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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
A jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
|
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 jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction, therefore 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|>
|
The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, since if the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene and the suspect had 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 the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
|
The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
|
The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt 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: ```The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, since if the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, which shows that no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.
|
If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then john davis had a history of stalking laura
|
John davis did not have a history of stalking laura
|
No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
modus tollen
|
A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
John Davis had a history of stalking Laura
|
No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, which shows that no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name, as if a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the stolen van was registered in a fake name and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.
|
If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The stolen van was registered in a fake name, as if a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the stolen van was registered in a fake name and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, so it can be concluded that emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
|
The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
|
modus ponen
|
The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon
|
The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, so it can be concluded that emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, and laura's laptop was found smashed, so it can be concluded that officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store.
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
|
Laura's laptop was found smashed
|
Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's laptop was found smashed
|
Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store
|
Laura's laptop was not found smashed
|
Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, and laura's laptop was found smashed, so it can be concluded that officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, and the baby is teething, so it can be concluded that a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.
|
If the baby is teething then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
The baby is teething
|
A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is teething
|
A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
|
The baby is not teething
|
No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet
| 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 a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, and the baby is teething, so it can be concluded that a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, therefore a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.
|
If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom
|
The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
|
A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
|
A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
|
The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information
|
No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, and the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, therefore a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Cats are not mammals, since if cats are mammals then laura had a life insurance policy and laura did not have a life insurance policy.
|
If cats are mammals then laura had a life insurance policy
|
Laura did not have a life insurance policy
|
Cats are not mammals
|
modus tollen
|
Cats are mammals
|
Laura had a life insurance policy
|
Cats are not mammals
|
Laura did not have a life insurance policy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Cats are not mammals, since if cats are mammals then laura had a life insurance policy and laura did not have a life insurance policy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which implies that emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.
|
If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
|
Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
|
Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park
|
Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, which implies that emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, which implies that the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail.
|
If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary
|
The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, which implies that the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The apple is not red, because if the apple is red then the book is a collection of short stories and the book is not a collection of short stories.
|
If the apple is red then the book is a collection of short stories
|
The book is not a collection of short stories
|
The apple is not red
|
modus tollen
|
The apple is red
|
The book is a collection of short stories
|
The apple is not red
|
The book is not a collection of short stories
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The apple is not red, because if the apple is red then the book is a collection of short stories and the book is not a collection of short stories.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the apple is red then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and the apple is red, which establishes that a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.
|
If the apple is red then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
The apple is red
|
A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
modus ponen
|
The apple is red
|
A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
The apple is not red
|
No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the apple is red then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and the apple is red, which establishes that a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the car is moving, and the car is not moving, which implies that detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter.
|
If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the car is moving
|
The car is not moving
|
Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
|
modus tollen
|
Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
|
The car is moving
|
Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
|
The car is not moving
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the car is moving, and the car is not moving, which implies that detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the sky is blue, and the sky is not blue, therefore no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.
|
If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the sky is blue
|
The sky is not blue
|
No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
modus tollen
|
A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
The sky is blue
|
No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
|
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 mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the sky is blue, and the sky is not blue, therefore no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery, so the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.
|
If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery
|
The security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery
|
The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number
|
The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery
|
The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number
|
The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery, so the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, hence john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents.
|
If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
|
Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal
|
John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents
|
Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal
|
John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents
|
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: ```If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, hence john davis was not 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 john davis had a history of financial problems then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, and john davis had a history of financial problems, hence a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.
|
If john davis had a history of financial problems then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment
|
John davis had a history of financial problems
|
A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a history of financial problems
|
A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
|
John Davis did not have a history of financial problems
|
No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of financial problems then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, and john davis had a history of financial problems, hence a 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 the book is a memoir then the book is on the table, and the book is not on the table, therefore the book is not a memoir.
|
If the book is a memoir then the book is on the table
|
The book is not on the table
|
The book is not a memoir
|
modus tollen
|
The book is a memoir
|
The book is on the table
|
The book is not a memoir
|
The book is not on the table
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a memoir then the book is on the table, and the book is not on the table, therefore the book is not a memoir.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, which establishes that a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.
|
If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack
|
A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
modus ponen
|
A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
|
A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
|
No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack
|
A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, which establishes that a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's mail was tampered with, as if emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then laura's mail was tampered with and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky.
|
If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then laura's mail was tampered with
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
Laura's mail was tampered with
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky
|
Laura's mail was tampered with
|
Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's mail was tampered with, as if emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then laura's mail was tampered with and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, and surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, thus officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.
|
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
|
Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
|
Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
|
Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, and surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, thus officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the dog is barking, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, which implies that the dog is barking.
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the dog is barking
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
The dog is barking
|
modus ponen
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
The dog is barking
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
The dog is not barking
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the dog is barking, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, which implies that the dog is barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, since if a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building.
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed
|
modus ponen
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, since if a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, therefore the stolen van was registered in a fake name.
|
If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, therefore the stolen van was 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 laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene, hence laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer.
|
If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene
|
Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer
|
A jeweler's toolset was not missing from 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 laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene, hence laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, hence a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.
|
If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
|
A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
modus ponen
|
Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
|
A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder
|
No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, hence a 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 weather is hot and humid then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, which shows that the weather is not hot and humid.
|
If the weather is hot and humid then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene
|
A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
|
The weather is not hot and humid
|
modus tollen
|
The weather is hot and humid
|
A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
|
The weather is not hot and humid
|
A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is hot and humid then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, which shows that the weather is not hot and humid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, which shows that no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.
|
If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat
|
A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat
|
No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
modus tollen
|
Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat
|
No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop
|
A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, which shows that no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, thus a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
|
The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, thus a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, thus the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument
|
The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument
|
The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
|
A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, thus the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a history of anger management issues, as if a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then john davis had a history of anger management issues and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction.
|
If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then john davis had a history of anger management issues
|
A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
John Davis had a history of anger management issues
|
modus ponen
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
John Davis had a history of anger management issues
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
|
John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a history of anger management issues, as if a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then john davis had a history of anger management issues and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had 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|>
|
If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the weather is cold and rainy, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, thus the weather is cold and rainy.
|
If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the weather is cold and rainy
|
The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
The weather is cold and rainy
|
modus ponen
|
The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
The weather is cold and rainy
|
The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail
|
The weather is not cold and rainy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the weather is cold and rainy, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, thus the weather is cold and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is tall then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the tree is tall, therefore the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder.
|
If the tree is tall then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
The tree is tall
|
The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
The tree is tall
|
The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
The tree is not tall
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is tall then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the tree is tall, therefore the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with toys then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, so it can be concluded that the baby is not playing with toys.
|
If the baby is playing with toys then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
The baby is not playing with toys
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is playing with toys
|
Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
|
The baby is not playing with toys
|
Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with toys then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, so it can be concluded that the baby is not playing with toys.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, because if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause.
|
If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
|
The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors
|
modus tollen
|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
|
The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors
|
The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, because if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause.```<|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 laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, since if the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user.
|
If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
|
The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
|
The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
|
The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
|
The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
|
The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, since if the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user.```<|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 wedding ring is missing then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and laura's wedding ring is missing, hence surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.
|
If laura's wedding ring is missing then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
Laura's wedding ring is missing
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's wedding ring is missing
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
Laura's wedding ring is not missing
|
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: ```If laura's wedding ring is missing then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and laura's wedding ring is missing, hence surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, thus the victim's name is not sarah mitchell.
|
If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home
|
A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home
|
The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home
|
The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell
|
A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, thus the victim's name is not sarah mitchell.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is purring contentedly on my lap, because if the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime.
|
If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
|
The cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime
|
The cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime
|
The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is purring contentedly on my lap, because if the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the 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 baby is drinking from a bottle then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and the baby is drinking from a bottle, which implies that laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.
|
If the baby is drinking from a bottle then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john
|
The baby is drinking from a bottle
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is drinking from a bottle
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John
|
The baby is not drinking from a bottle
|
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 the baby is drinking from a bottle then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and the baby is drinking from a bottle, which implies that laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, so the sun is setting slowly in the sky.
|
If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
modus ponen
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, so the sun is setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then laura's mail was tampered with, and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, so laura's mail was tampered with.
|
If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then laura's mail was tampered with
|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
|
Laura's mail was tampered with
|
modus ponen
|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors
|
Laura's mail was tampered with
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors
|
Laura's mail was not tampered with
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then laura's mail was tampered with, and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, so laura's mail was tampered with.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the movie is a horror film, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, therefore the movie is a horror film.
|
If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the movie is a horror film
|
The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
|
The movie is a horror film
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement
|
The movie is a horror film
|
The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement
|
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 the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the movie is a horror film, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, therefore the movie is a horror film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not teething on a toy, as if the baby is teething on a toy then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.
|
If the baby is teething on a toy then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
The baby is not teething on a toy
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is teething on a toy
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
|
The baby is not teething on a toy
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not teething on a toy, as if the baby is teething on a toy then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The car is a sedan, because if john davis had a history of identity theft then the car is a sedan and john davis had a history of identity theft.
|
If john davis had a history of identity theft then the car is a sedan
|
John davis had a history of identity theft
|
The car is a sedan
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a history of identity theft
|
The car is a sedan
|
John Davis did not have a history of identity theft
|
The car is not a sedan
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is a sedan, because if john davis had a history of identity theft then the car is a sedan and john davis had a history of identity theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mail truck then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which shows that the dog is not barking at the mail truck.
|
If the dog is barking at the mail truck then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery
|
No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking at the mail truck
|
A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck
|
No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mail truck then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which shows that the dog is not barking at the mail truck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, which shows that the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars.
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
modus ponen
|
A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, which shows that the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's pet cat is missing then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed, which implies that laura's pet cat is not missing.
|
If laura's pet cat is missing then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
|
Laura's pet cat is not missing
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's pet cat is missing
|
Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed
|
Laura's pet cat is not missing
|
Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's pet cat is missing then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed, which implies that laura's pet cat is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, because if it is raining today then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily and it is raining today.
|
If it is raining today then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily
|
It is raining today
|
A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily
|
modus ponen
|
It is raining today
|
A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily
|
It is not raining today
|
A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, because if it is raining today then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily and it is raining today.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of anger management issues then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, which shows that sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder.
|
If john davis had a history of anger management issues then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
John davis had a history of anger management issues
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a history of anger management issues
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues
|
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 john davis had a history of anger management issues then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, which shows that sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, as if the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene.
|
If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene
|
A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
|
modus tollen
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
A stolen car was reported near the crime scene
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
|
A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, as if the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene and a stolen car was not reported 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 victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, which shows that the baby is drinking from a bottle.
|
If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the baby is drinking from a bottle
|
The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
The baby is drinking from a bottle
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
The baby is drinking from a bottle
|
The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
|
The baby is not drinking from a bottle
| 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 neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, which shows that the baby is 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 laura's personal files were deleted from her computer 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 shows that laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer.
|
If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer 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
|
Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer
|
modus tollen
|
Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker
|
Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer
|
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 laura's personal files were deleted from her computer 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 shows that laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, hence the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns.
|
If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the baby is crawling
|
The baby is not crawling
|
The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
modus tollen
|
The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
The baby is crawling
|
The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
The baby is not crawling
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, hence the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is sleeping then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and the baby is sleeping, which establishes that officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.
|
If the baby is sleeping then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet
|
The baby is sleeping
|
Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is sleeping
|
Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
|
The baby is not sleeping
|
Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is sleeping then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and the baby is sleeping, which establishes that officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the book is a romance novel, and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, which establishes that the book is a romance novel.
|
If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the book is a romance novel
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
|
The book is a romance novel
|
modus ponen
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization
|
The book is a romance novel
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization
|
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 jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the book is a romance novel, and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, 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 a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then john davis has a history of violent behavior, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, therefore john davis has a history of violent behavior.
|
If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then john davis has a history of violent behavior
|
A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
John Davis has a history of violent behavior
|
modus ponen
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement
|
John Davis has a history of violent behavior
|
A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement
|
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 a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then john davis has a history of violent behavior, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, therefore 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|>
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and john davis had bruises on his arms, which shows that the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems.
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
|
John davis had bruises on his arms
|
The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had bruises on his arms
|
The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
|
John Davis did not have bruises on his arms
|
The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had bruises on his arms then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and john davis had bruises on his arms, which shows that the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the book is a mystery novel, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, which establishes that the book is a mystery novel.
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the book is a mystery novel
|
The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
|
The book is a mystery novel
|
modus ponen
|
The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m
|
The book is a mystery novel
|
The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m
|
The book is not a mystery novel
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the book is a mystery novel, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, which establishes that the book is a mystery novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the movie is a thriller, and the movie is not a thriller, hence a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.
|
If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the movie is a thriller
|
The movie is not a thriller
|
A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
modus tollen
|
A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
The movie is a thriller
|
A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake
|
The movie is not a thriller
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the movie is a thriller, and the movie is not a thriller, hence a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had installed a home security system then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and no bloody footprint was found in the living room, which shows that laura had not installed a home security system.
|
If laura had installed a home security system then a bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
|
modus tollen
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
|
No bloody footprint was found in the living room
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had installed a home security system then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and no bloody footprint was found in the living room, which shows that 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|>
|
If the weather is cold and snowy then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and the weather is cold and snowy, so it can be concluded that a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene.
|
If the weather is cold and snowy then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
The weather is cold and snowy
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
The weather is cold and snowy
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene
|
The weather is not cold and snowy
|
A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and snowy then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and the weather is cold and snowy, so it can be concluded that a jeweler's toolset was missing from 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 weather is mild and pleasant then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery, so it can be concluded that the weather is not mild and pleasant.
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery
|
The security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery
|
The weather is not mild and pleasant
|
modus tollen
|
The weather is mild and pleasant
|
The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery
|
The weather is not mild and pleasant
|
The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is mild and pleasant then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery, so it can be concluded that the weather is not mild and pleasant.```<|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 personal files were deleted from her computer, as if the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user.
|
If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
|
Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
|
Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
|
Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, as if the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, thus the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
|
modus ponen
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, thus the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is hot and humid then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and the weather is hot and humid, thus a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.
|
If the weather is hot and humid then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
The weather is hot and humid
|
A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
modus ponen
|
The weather is hot and humid
|
A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
|
The weather is not hot and humid
|
No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is hot and humid then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and the weather is hot and humid, thus a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, as if the baby is crying loudly then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van and the baby is crying loudly.
|
If the baby is crying loudly then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
The baby is crying loudly
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is crying loudly
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van
|
The baby is not crying loudly
|
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: ```Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, as if the baby is crying loudly then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van and the baby is crying loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, which establishes that a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
|
modus ponen
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder
|
No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, which establishes that a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, since if the car is moving then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet and the car is moving.
|
If the car is moving then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet
|
The car is moving
|
Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
|
modus ponen
|
The car is moving
|
Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
|
The car is not moving
|
Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, since if the car is moving then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet and the car is moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder 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, therefore the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder 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
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
|
A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
|
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 the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder 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, therefore the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene 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|>
|
Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, as if the book is written by a famous author then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard and the book is written by a famous author.
|
If the book is written by a famous author then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
|
modus ponen
|
The book is written by a famous author
|
Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
|
The book is not written by a famous author
|
Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, as if the book is written by a famous author then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard and the book is written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, so a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.
|
If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
modus ponen
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, so a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep.```<|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 through the window, as if the sun is shining through the window then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house and no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.
|
If the sun is shining through the window then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house
|
No hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house
|
The sun is not shining through the window
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is shining through the window
|
A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
|
The sun is not shining through the window
|
No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not shining through the window, as if the sun is shining through the window then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house and no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is a romance novel, since if the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then the book is a romance novel and the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted.
|
If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then the book is a romance novel
|
The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted
|
The book is a romance novel
|
modus ponen
|
The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted
|
The book is a romance novel
|
The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted
|
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: ```The book is a romance novel, since if the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then the book is a romance novel and the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the victim's name is laura martinez, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, which implies that the victim's name is laura martinez.
|
If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the victim's name is laura martinez
|
Richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
The victim's name is Laura Martinez
|
modus ponen
|
Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
The victim's name is Laura Martinez
|
Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
|
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 richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the victim's name is laura martinez, and richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, which implies that 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 a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, which shows that a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned.
|
If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
|
A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
|
A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned
|
No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
|
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: ```If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, which shows that a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned.```<|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 car was vandalized the week before the incident then the book is a bestseller, and laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, which implies that the book is a bestseller.
|
If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then the book is a bestseller
|
Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident
|
The book is a bestseller
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident
|
The book is a bestseller
|
Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident
|
The book is not a bestseller
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then the book is a bestseller, and laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, which implies that the book is a bestseller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings, therefore a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
|
modus tollen
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home
|
A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings
|
A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home
|
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 a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings, therefore a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then the baby is crying, and the baby is not crying, which shows that the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect.
|
If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then the baby is crying
|
The baby is not crying
|
The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect
|
modus tollen
|
The victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
The baby is crying
|
The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect
|
The baby is not crying
| 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 the baby is crying, and the baby is not crying, which shows 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 detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems, which establishes that detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.
|
If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
|
The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems
|
Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
|
modus tollen
|
Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
|
The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems
|
Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
|
The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems, which establishes that detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, because if a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe and no coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.
|
If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe
|
No coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe
|
No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
modus tollen
|
A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
|
No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder
|
No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, because if a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe and no coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, hence richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions.
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id
|
Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
modus ponen
|
A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
|
Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions
|
No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
|
Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, hence richard anderson's financial records revealed 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|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.