Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.
stringlengths 74
421
| If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
stringlengths 36
192
| Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 788
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street
stringclasses 788
values | modus ponen
stringclasses 2
values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1
stringclasses 394
values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street
stringclasses 394
values | True
bool 1
class | text
stringlengths 453
800
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If the cat is sleeping on the couch then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, thus the cat is not sleeping on the couch.
|
If the cat is sleeping on the couch then the baby is teething on a toy
|
The baby is not teething on a toy
|
The cat is not sleeping on the couch
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is sleeping on the couch
|
The baby is teething on a toy
|
The cat is not sleeping on the couch
|
The baby is not teething on a toy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping on the couch then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, thus the cat is not sleeping on the couch.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis has a history of violent behavior then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, hence john davis does not have a history of violent behavior.
|
If john davis has a history of violent behavior then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis has a history of violent behavior
|
A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning
|
John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior
|
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 john davis has a history of violent behavior then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, hence john davis does not have 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 the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, so a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.
|
If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
|
The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident
|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, so a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The water is warm, as if the dog is barking at the dog next door then the water is warm and the dog is barking at the dog next door.
|
If the dog is barking at the dog next door then the water is warm
|
The dog is barking at the dog next door
|
The water is warm
|
modus ponen
|
The dog is barking at the dog next door
|
The water is warm
|
The dog is not barking at the dog next door
|
The water is not warm
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The water is warm, as if the dog is barking at the dog next door then the water is warm and the dog is barking at the dog next door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the weather is cold and snowy, and the weather is not cold and snowy, hence the sun is not setting slowly in the sky.
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the weather is cold and snowy
|
The weather is not cold and snowy
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The weather is cold and snowy
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
The weather is not cold and snowy
| 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 weather is cold and snowy, and the weather is not cold and snowy, hence the sun is not 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 cat is black then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and the cat is black, which implies that a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.
|
If the cat is black then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house
|
The cat is black
|
A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is black
|
A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house
|
The cat is not black
|
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: ```If the cat is black then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and the cat is black, which implies that a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a science fiction film then the car is a sedan, and the car is not a sedan, which establishes that the movie is not a science fiction film.
|
If the movie is a science fiction film then the car is a sedan
|
The car is not a sedan
|
The movie is not a science fiction film
|
modus tollen
|
The movie is a science fiction film
|
The car is a sedan
|
The movie is not a science fiction film
|
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: ```If the movie is a science fiction film then the car is a sedan, and the car is not a sedan, which establishes that the movie is not a science fiction film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data, therefore witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.
|
If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
|
Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
modus tollen
|
Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist
|
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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data, therefore witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, which implies that the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard.
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
|
modus ponen
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, which implies that the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the football is round then the movie is a sports film, and the football is round, thus the movie is a sports film.
|
If the football is round then the movie is a sports film
|
The football is round
|
The movie is a sports film
|
modus ponen
|
The football is round
|
The movie is a sports film
|
The football is not round
|
The movie is not a sports film
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the football is round then the movie is a sports film, and the football is round, thus the movie is a sports film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, which implies that john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe.
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe
|
A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
modus ponen
|
A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment
|
John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
| 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 john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, which implies that john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's 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 the eiffel tower is in paris then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, so it can be concluded that the eiffel tower is not in paris.
|
If the eiffel tower is in paris then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
|
modus tollen
|
The Eiffel Tower is in Paris
|
The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder
|
The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
|
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 eiffel tower is in paris then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, so it can be concluded that the eiffel tower is not in paris.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, so john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.
|
If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
|
A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
|
John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe
|
A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
|
John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe
|
A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, so john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, since if a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery and richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery.
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery
|
Richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery
|
No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery
|
No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, since if a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery and richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery.```<|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 sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, hence sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder.
|
If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
|
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 detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, hence 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 victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, because if the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home.
|
If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
|
The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
|
The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
|
The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, because if the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then laura's house was booby-trapped, and laura's house was not booby-trapped, therefore the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.
|
If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then laura's house was booby-trapped
|
Laura's house was not booby-trapped
|
The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
|
Laura's house was booby-trapped
|
The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
|
Laura's house was not booby-trapped
| 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 social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then laura's house was booby-trapped, and laura's house was not booby-trapped, therefore the suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not laughing at the toy, since if the baby is laughing at the toy then laura's phone records show calls to 911 and laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.
|
If the baby is laughing at the toy then laura's phone records show calls to 911
|
Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
|
The baby is not laughing at the toy
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is laughing at the toy
|
Laura's phone records show calls to 911
|
The baby is not laughing at the toy
|
Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911
| 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 laughing at the toy, since if the baby is laughing at the toy then laura's phone records show calls to 911 and laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, therefore john davis had a history of stalking laura.
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then john davis had a history of stalking laura
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
John Davis had a history of stalking Laura
|
modus ponen
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
John Davis had a history of stalking Laura
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
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 security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, therefore john davis had a history of stalking laura.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, because if laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene and laura had recently changed her social media passwords.
|
If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
|
Laura had recently changed her social media passwords
|
The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
Laura had recently changed her social media passwords
|
The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene
|
Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords
|
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, because if laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene and laura had recently changed her social media passwords.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, thus laura's dog was found locked in a closet.
|
If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
modus ponen
|
A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
Laura's dog was found locked in a closet
|
No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, thus laura's dog was found locked in a closet.```<|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 laughing at the toy, because if the baby is laughing at the toy then laura's social media accounts were hacked and laura's social media accounts were not hacked.
|
If the baby is laughing at the toy then laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
|
The baby is not laughing at the toy
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is laughing at the toy
|
Laura's social media accounts were hacked
|
The baby is not laughing at the toy
|
Laura's social media accounts were not hacked
| 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 laughing at the toy, because if the baby is laughing at the toy then laura's social media accounts were hacked and laura's social media accounts were not hacked.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, which implies that the eiffel tower is in paris.
|
If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the eiffel tower is in paris
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
The Eiffel Tower is in Paris
|
modus ponen
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
The Eiffel Tower is in Paris
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
|
The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars, which implies that the eiffel tower is in paris.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, hence the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk.
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk
|
A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, hence the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder, since if sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car and a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.
|
If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
|
modus tollen
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder
|
A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder
|
A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder, since if sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car and a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, which establishes that the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.
|
If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene
|
A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene
|
The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster
|
A strand of hair was found at the crime scene
|
The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster
|
A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, which establishes that the victim's cellphone was not found 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|>
|
If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, hence a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard.
|
If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard
|
A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard
|
modus ponen
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
|
No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, hence a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, so it can be concluded that a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine.
|
If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses
|
A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine
|
The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses
|
A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, so it can be concluded that a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, since if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft.
|
If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
|
The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft
|
The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
|
The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, since if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, which shows that no witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.
|
If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene
|
No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, which shows that no witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft, so the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars.
|
If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
|
modus tollen
|
The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars
|
Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft, so the stolen jewels were not 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|>
|
The baby is playing with toys, as if the victim's name is laura martinez then the baby is playing with toys and the victim's name is laura martinez.
|
If the victim's name is laura martinez then the baby is playing with toys
|
The victim's name is laura martinez
|
The baby is playing with toys
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's name is Laura Martinez
|
The baby is playing with toys
|
The victim's name is not Laura Martinez
|
The baby is not playing with toys
| 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 playing with toys, as if the victim's name is laura martinez then the baby is playing with toys and the victim's name is laura martinez.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, therefore a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession.
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, therefore a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is nice then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and the weather is nice, thus a witness heard screams coming from laura's house.
|
If the weather is nice then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house
|
The weather is nice
|
A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
modus ponen
|
The weather is nice
|
A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
The weather is not nice
|
No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is nice then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and the weather is nice, thus a witness heard screams coming from laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the suspect had no history of mental health issues, so no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
The suspect had no history of mental health issues
|
No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
modus tollen
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
The suspect had a history of mental health issues
|
No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene
|
The suspect had no history of mental health issues
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the suspect had no history of mental health issues, so no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a secret storage unit, since if john davis had a secret storage unit then the baby is sleeping and the baby is not sleeping.
|
If john davis had a secret storage unit then the baby is sleeping
|
The baby is not sleeping
|
John Davis did not have a secret storage unit
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a secret storage unit
|
The baby is sleeping
|
John Davis did not have a secret storage unit
|
The baby is not sleeping
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a secret storage unit, since if john davis had a secret storage unit then the baby is sleeping and the baby is not sleeping.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the book is on the table, and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, hence the book is on the table.
|
If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the book is on the table
|
A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace
|
The book is on the table
|
modus ponen
|
A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
|
The book is on the table
|
No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace
|
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 a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then the book is on the table, and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, hence the book is on the table.```<|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 setting slowly in the sky, since if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder and the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is setting slowly in the sky
|
The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky
|
The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not setting slowly in the sky, since if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder and the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then sally is older than john, and sally is not older than john, thus no coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe.
|
If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then sally is older than john
|
Sally is not older than john
|
No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
|
modus tollen
|
A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
|
Sally is older than John
|
No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe
|
Sally is not older than John
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe then sally is older than john, and sally is not older than john, thus 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 the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, therefore the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data.
|
If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
|
modus ponen
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery
|
The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data
|
The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery
|
The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, therefore the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, and no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, thus detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects.
|
If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
|
No bloody shirt was found in john davis's car
|
Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
modus tollen
|
Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
|
Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, and no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, thus detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not crying, as if the baby is crying then the weather is cloudy and rainy and the weather is not cloudy and rainy.
|
If the baby is crying then the weather is cloudy and rainy
|
The weather is not cloudy and rainy
|
The baby is not crying
|
modus tollen
|
The baby is crying
|
The weather is cloudy and rainy
|
The baby is not crying
|
The weather is not cloudy and rainy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not crying, as if the baby is crying then the weather is cloudy and rainy and the weather is not cloudy and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Paris is not in france, since if paris is in france then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene.
|
If paris is in france then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene
|
A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene
|
Paris is not in France
|
modus tollen
|
Paris is in France
|
A strand of hair was found at the crime scene
|
Paris is not in France
|
A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Paris is not in france, since if paris is in france then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, hence a witness heard screams coming from laura's house.
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house
|
The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
|
The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
|
No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, hence a witness heard screams coming from 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|>
|
No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, because if a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the murder weapon was a baseball bat and the murder weapon was not a baseball bat.
|
If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
The murder weapon was not a baseball bat
|
No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
modus tollen
|
A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
The murder weapon was a baseball bat
|
No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
The murder weapon was not a baseball bat
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, because if a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the murder weapon was a baseball bat and the murder weapon was not a baseball bat.```<|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 social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, so a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene.
|
If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim
|
A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene
|
The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim
|
A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, so a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, as if a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.
|
If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
|
modus tollen
|
A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
|
A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
|
No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID
|
No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, as if a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the dog is barking at the door, and john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, so it can be concluded that the dog is barking at the door.
|
If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the dog is barking at the door
|
John davis was caught on camera buying duct tape
|
The dog is barking at the door
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape
|
The dog is barking at the door
|
John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape
|
The dog is not barking at the door
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the dog is barking at the door, and john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, so it can be concluded that the dog is barking at the door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, thus a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house.
|
If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
modus tollen
|
A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
|
A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and no hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, thus a neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around 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|>
|
A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop, as if a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings and no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.
|
If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
|
No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings
|
A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
|
modus tollen
|
A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
|
A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
|
A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
|
No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop, as if a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings and no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.```<|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 did not have a history of violence against the victim, since if the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate and emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate.
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
|
modus tollen
|
The suspect had a history of violence against the victim
|
Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
|
The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim
|
Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim, since if the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate and emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, thus a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.
|
If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder
|
Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder
|
A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
modus tollen
|
A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder
|
A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store
|
Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, and emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, thus a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, so it can be concluded that no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect
|
No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
modus tollen
|
A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
The victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene
|
The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, so it can be concluded that no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, as if the car is moving then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene and the car is moving.
|
If the car is moving then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene
|
The car is moving
|
Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene
|
modus ponen
|
The car is moving
|
Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene
|
The car is not moving
|
Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, as if the car is moving then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene 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|>
|
The sun is not shining brightly, as if the sun is shining brightly then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone and john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone.
|
If the sun is shining brightly then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone
|
John davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone
|
The sun is not shining brightly
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is shining brightly
|
John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone
|
The sun is not shining brightly
|
John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not shining brightly, as if the sun is shining brightly then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone and john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, therefore the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect.
|
If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
|
The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect
|
modus tollen
|
The victim had a restraining order against the suspect
|
A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
|
The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect
|
No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a restraining order against the suspect then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, therefore 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|>
|
The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, because if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then laura had a secret storage room in her house and laura did not have a secret storage room in her house.
|
If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then laura had a secret storage room in her house
|
Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
|
The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
Laura had a secret storage room in her house
|
The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive
|
Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, because if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then laura had a secret storage room in her house and laura did not have a secret storage room in her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of identity theft then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, which shows that john davis did not have a history of identity theft.
|
If john davis had a history of identity theft then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
|
The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
|
John Davis did not have a history of identity theft
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had a history of identity theft
|
The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors
|
John Davis did not have a history of identity theft
|
The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of identity theft then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, which shows that john davis did not have 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 a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the book is on the nightstand, and the book is not on the nightstand, hence a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.
|
If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the book is on the nightstand
|
The book is not on the nightstand
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
|
modus tollen
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo
|
The book is on the nightstand
|
A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo
|
The book is not on the nightstand
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the book is on the nightstand, and the book is not on the nightstand, hence a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, and the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim, therefore the sun is not shining brightly.
|
If the sun is shining brightly then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
|
The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
|
The sun is not shining brightly
|
modus tollen
|
The sun is shining brightly
|
The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
|
The sun is not shining brightly
|
The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, and the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim, therefore the sun is not shining brightly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, because if detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects.
|
If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house
|
Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house
|
Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, because if detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No broken window was found in laura's bedroom, since if a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim and the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.
|
If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
|
The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
|
No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
modus tollen
|
A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim
|
No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom
|
The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No broken window was found in laura's bedroom, since if a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim and the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, so a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.
|
If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles
|
A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
modus ponen
|
Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles
|
A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence
|
Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles
|
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 richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, so 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 a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the dog is barking at the mailman, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, so the dog is barking at the mailman.
|
If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the dog is barking at the mailman
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
modus ponen
|
A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
|
The dog is barking at the mailman
|
No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the dog is barking at the mailman, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, so the dog is barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring loudly then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, therefore the cat is not purring loudly.
|
If the cat is purring loudly then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees
|
The store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees
|
The cat is not purring loudly
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is purring loudly
|
The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees
|
The cat is not purring loudly
|
The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring loudly then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, and the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees, therefore 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 detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, so the cat is purring contentedly on my lap.
|
If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse
|
The cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
modus ponen
|
Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse
|
The cat is purring contentedly on my lap
|
Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse
|
The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, so the cat is purring contentedly on my lap.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not a collection of short stories, since if the book is a collection of short stories then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard and no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.
|
If the book is a collection of short stories then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard
|
No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard
|
The book is not a collection of short stories
|
modus tollen
|
The book is a collection of short stories
|
A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
|
The book is not a collection of short stories
|
No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard
| 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 not a collection of short stories, since if the book is a collection of short stories then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard and no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the computer is on then the movie is a family film, and the computer is on, therefore the movie is a family film.
|
If the computer is on then the movie is a family film
|
The computer is on
|
The movie is a family film
|
modus ponen
|
The computer is on
|
The movie is a family film
|
The computer is not on
|
The movie is not a family film
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the computer is on then the movie is a family film, and the computer is on, therefore the movie is a family film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping on the couch then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder, so the cat is not sleeping on the couch.
|
If the cat is sleeping on the couch then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
|
The cat is not sleeping on the couch
|
modus tollen
|
The cat is sleeping on the couch
|
The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder
|
The cat is not sleeping on the couch
|
The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping on the couch then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder, so the cat is not sleeping on the couch.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the sun is shining brightly, thus the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.
|
If the sun is shining brightly then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
The sun is shining brightly
|
The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
modus ponen
|
The sun is shining brightly
|
The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
|
The sun is not shining brightly
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the sun is shining brightly, thus the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, so laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.
|
If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john
|
The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John
|
modus ponen
|
The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John
|
The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted
|
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 store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, so 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 john davis had bruises on his arms then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, which shows that john davis did not have bruises on his arms.
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
John Davis did not have bruises on his arms
|
modus tollen
|
John Davis had bruises on his arms
|
A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
|
John Davis did not have bruises on his arms
|
No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had bruises on his arms then a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, which shows that john davis did not have bruises on his arms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is a documentary, since if the cat is purring then the movie is a documentary and the cat is purring.
|
If the cat is purring then the movie is a documentary
|
The cat is purring
|
The movie is a documentary
|
modus ponen
|
The cat is purring
|
The movie is a documentary
|
The cat is not purring
|
The movie is not a documentary
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is a documentary, since if the cat is purring then the movie is a documentary and the cat is purring.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, which establishes that a bloody footprint was found in the living room.
|
If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then a bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
modus ponen
|
Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker
|
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's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, which establishes that a bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|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 the baby is laughing at the toy, and the baby is not laughing at the toy, which shows that the tree is not shedding leaves.
|
If the tree is shedding leaves then the baby is laughing at the toy
|
The baby is not laughing at the toy
|
The tree is not shedding leaves
|
modus tollen
|
The tree is shedding leaves
|
The baby is laughing at the toy
|
The tree is not shedding leaves
|
The baby is not laughing at the toy
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is shedding leaves then the baby is laughing at the toy, and the baby is not laughing at the toy, which shows 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|>
|
The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, since if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter and detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter.
|
If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
|
Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter
|
The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
|
Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
|
The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect
|
Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, since if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter and detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, thus surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.
|
If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
modus ponen
|
The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home
|
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 the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, thus 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the baby is playing with blocks, and the baby is not playing with blocks, which implies that the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.
|
If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the baby is playing with blocks
|
The baby is not playing with blocks
|
The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
|
modus tollen
|
The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery
|
The baby is playing with blocks
|
The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery
|
The baby is not playing with blocks
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the baby is playing with blocks, and the baby is not playing with blocks, which implies that the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, so no security camera captured the suspect entering the building.
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it
|
The murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
modus tollen
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the building
|
The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, so no security camera captured the suspect entering the building.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a family film then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and the movie is a family film, thus a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle.
|
If the movie is a family film then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
The movie is a family film
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
modus ponen
|
The movie is a family film
|
A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle
|
The movie is not a family film
|
A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a family film then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and the movie is a family film, thus a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck, because if the dog is barking at the mail truck then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar and a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.
|
If the dog is barking at the mail truck then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar
|
A fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck
|
modus tollen
|
The dog is barking at the mail truck
|
A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar
|
The dog is not barking at the mail truck
|
A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is not barking at the mail truck, because if the dog is barking at the mail truck then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar and a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura had installed a home security system, since if a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then laura had installed a home security system and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.
|
If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then laura had installed a home security system
|
A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
modus ponen
|
A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
Laura had installed a home security system
|
No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby
|
Laura had not installed a home security system
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura had installed a home security system, since if a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then laura had installed a home security system and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which shows that the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information.
|
If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
|
Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
|
modus ponen
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information
|
Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery
|
The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which shows that the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is a science fiction film, as if the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the movie is a science fiction film and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the movie is a science fiction film
|
The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
The movie is a science fiction film
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
The movie is a science fiction film
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country
|
The movie is not a science fiction film
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is a science fiction film, as if the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the movie is a science fiction film and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.```<|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 jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, thus laura's personal files were deleted from her computer.
|
If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
modus ponen
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction
|
Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer
|
A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction
|
Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, thus laura's personal files were deleted from her computer.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, which establishes that a strand of hair was found at the crime scene.
|
If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene
|
A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror
|
A strand of hair was found at the crime scene
|
modus ponen
|
A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
|
A strand of hair was found at the crime scene
|
No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror
|
A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, which establishes that a strand of hair was found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking at the television, because if the tree is shedding leaves then the dog is barking at the television and the tree is shedding leaves.
|
If the tree is shedding leaves then the dog is barking at the television
|
The tree is shedding leaves
|
The dog is barking at the television
|
modus ponen
|
The tree is shedding leaves
|
The dog is barking at the television
|
The tree is not shedding leaves
|
The dog is not barking at the television
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking at the television, because if the tree is shedding leaves then the dog is barking at the television and the tree is shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a neighbor did not hear a gunshot, hence the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data.
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then a neighbor heard a gunshot
|
A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
|
modus tollen
|
The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data
|
A neighbor did not hear a gunshot
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a neighbor did not hear a gunshot, hence the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, because if a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags and a shattered vase was found in the hallway.
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
|
A shattered vase was found in the hallway
|
A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
|
modus ponen
|
A shattered vase was found in the hallway
|
A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
|
A shattered vase was not found in the hallway
|
A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, because if a shattered vase was found in the hallway then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags and a shattered vase was found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, so detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.
|
If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
modus ponen
|
The stolen van was registered in a fake name
|
Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
|
The stolen van was not registered in a fake name
|
Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, so detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis has a history of violent behavior then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, so a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.
|
If john davis has a history of violent behavior then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
John davis has a history of violent behavior
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis has a history of violent behavior
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
|
John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior
|
No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis has a history of violent behavior then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, so a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not on the nightstand, as if the book is on the nightstand then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property and a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.
|
If the book is on the nightstand then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
The book is not on the nightstand
|
modus tollen
|
The book is on the nightstand
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
|
The book is not on the nightstand
|
A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not on the nightstand, as if the book is on the nightstand then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property and a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the baby is crying, which implies that the weather is cloudy and rainy.
|
If the baby is crying then the weather is cloudy and rainy
|
The baby is crying
|
The weather is cloudy and rainy
|
modus ponen
|
The baby is crying
|
The weather is cloudy and rainy
|
The baby is not crying
|
The weather is not cloudy 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 baby is crying then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the baby is crying, which implies that the weather is cloudy and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, because if john davis had a history of stalking other women then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and john davis had a history of stalking other women.
|
If john davis had a history of stalking other women then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
|
John davis had a history of stalking other women
|
A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had a history of stalking other women
|
A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop
|
John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women
|
A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, because if john davis had a history of stalking other women then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and john davis had a history of stalking other women.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the football is round then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, which shows that the football is not round.
|
If the football is round then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
The football is not round
|
modus tollen
|
The football is round
|
Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
|
The football is not round
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the football is round then emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, which shows that the football is not round.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, which establishes that detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
|
Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
|
modus ponen
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle
|
Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle
|
Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, which establishes that detective ellis discovered 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|>
|
If the weather is hot and humid then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, and the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, which shows that the weather is not hot and humid.
|
If the weather is hot and humid then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
|
The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
|
The weather is not hot and humid
|
modus tollen
|
The weather is hot and humid
|
The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user
|
The weather is not hot and humid
|
The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user
| 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 the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, and the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, 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|>
|
No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, since if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects and detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects.
|
If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
|
modus tollen
|
A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
|
Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects
|
No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office
|
Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, since if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects and detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, since if john davis had recently purchased a firearm then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car and john davis had recently purchased a firearm.
|
If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
John davis had recently purchased a firearm
|
A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
modus ponen
|
John Davis had recently purchased a firearm
|
A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
|
John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm
|
A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car
| true
|
<s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, since if john davis had recently purchased a firearm then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car and john davis had recently purchased a firearm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, because if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
|
modus ponen
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder
|
Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store
|
Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day 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: ```Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, because if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.