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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, since if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard. | If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | modus ponen | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, since if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is drinking from a bottle then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, and the baby is drinking from a bottle, which establishes that the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain. | If the baby is drinking from a bottle then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The baby is drinking from a bottle | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | modus ponen | The baby is drinking from a bottle | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is drinking from a bottle then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, and the baby is drinking from a bottle, which establishes that the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and the sun is setting slowly, so it can be concluded that emily had recently taken a self-defense course. | If the sun is setting slowly then emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The sun is setting slowly | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | modus ponen | The sun is setting slowly | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The sun is not setting slowly | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and the sun is setting slowly, so it can be concluded that emily had recently taken a self-defense course.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a thriller then the arson occurred on elm street, and the movie is a thriller, so the arson occurred on elm street. | If the movie is a thriller then the arson occurred on elm street | The movie is a thriller | The arson occurred on Elm Street | modus ponen | The movie is a thriller | The arson occurred on Elm Street | The movie is not a thriller | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a thriller then the arson occurred on elm street, and the movie is a thriller, so the arson occurred on elm street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and the dog is barking at the mailman, hence a strand of hair was found at the crime scene. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The dog is barking at the mailman | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the mailman | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The dog is not barking at the mailman | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and the dog is barking at the mailman, hence a strand of hair was found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the car is moving, and the car is not moving, therefore john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone. | If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the car is moving | The car is not moving | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | modus tollen | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The car is moving | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The car is not moving | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the car is moving, and the car is not moving, therefore 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 a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the movie is a family film, and the movie is not a family film, hence no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house. | If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the movie is a family film | The movie is not a family film | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | modus tollen | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The movie is a family film | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | 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 a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the movie is a family film, and the movie is not a family film, hence no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, therefore surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime. | If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | modus ponen | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, therefore surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then the dog is barking loudly, and the dog is not barking loudly, which establishes that no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard. | If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then the dog is barking loudly | The dog is not barking loudly | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | modus tollen | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | The dog is barking loudly | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | The dog is not barking loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then the dog is barking loudly, and the dog is not barking loudly, which establishes that no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a family film then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and the movie is a family film, which establishes that the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country. | If the movie is a family film then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The movie is a family film | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | modus ponen | The movie is a family film | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The movie is not a family film | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a family film then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and the movie is a family film, which establishes that 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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, so it can be concluded that a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags. | If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | modus ponen | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | 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: ```If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, so it can be concluded that a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a history of identity theft, because if a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then john davis had a history of identity theft and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder. | If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then john davis had a history of identity theft | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | John Davis had a history of identity theft | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | John Davis had a history of identity theft | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a history of identity theft, because if a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then john davis had a history of identity theft and a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, because if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene. | If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | modus ponen | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | 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 hearing glass breaking at night, because if officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, thus a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard. | If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | modus tollen | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, thus a bloody glove was not discovered 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|>
|
The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, as if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned and a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned. | If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | modus tollen | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, as if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned and a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring contentedly then the car is a hybrid, and the cat is purring contentedly, therefore the car is a hybrid. | If the cat is purring contentedly then the car is a hybrid | The cat is purring contentedly | The car is a hybrid | modus ponen | The cat is purring contentedly | The car is a hybrid | The cat is not purring contentedly | The car is not a hybrid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring contentedly then the car is a hybrid, and the cat is purring contentedly, therefore the car is a hybrid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the door then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and the baby is crawling towards the door, so a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen. | If the baby is crawling towards the door then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | The baby is crawling towards the door | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the door | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | The baby is not crawling towards the door | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the door then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and the baby is crawling towards the door, so a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact, which shows that emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | modus tollen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | 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 the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact, which shows that emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a history of substance abuse, as if john davis had a history of substance abuse then the movie is a drama and the movie is not a drama. | If john davis had a history of substance abuse then the movie is a drama | The movie is not a drama | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | The movie is a drama | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | The movie is not a drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a history of substance abuse, as if john davis had a history of substance abuse then the movie is a drama and the movie is not a drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, so it can be concluded that a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | modus ponen | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | 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 the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, so it can be concluded that a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The weather is not nice, because if the weather is nice then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect. | If the weather is nice then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | The weather is not nice | modus tollen | The weather is nice | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The weather is not nice | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The weather is not nice, because if the weather is nice then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then the weather is cold and snowy, and the weather is not cold and snowy, so laura's laptop was not found smashed. | If laura's laptop was found smashed then the weather is cold and snowy | The weather is not cold and snowy | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | modus tollen | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The weather is cold and snowy | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | 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 laura's laptop was found smashed then the weather is cold and snowy, and the weather is not cold and snowy, so laura's laptop was not found smashed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, hence the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user. | If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the cat is grooming itself | The cat is not grooming itself | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | modus tollen | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | The cat is grooming itself | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | The cat is not grooming itself | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, hence the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems, so it can be concluded that john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape. | If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | modus tollen | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and the suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems, so it can be concluded that john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, as if the football is round then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement and the football is round. | If the football is round then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The football is round | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | modus ponen | The football is round | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The football is not round | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, as if the football is round then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement and the football is 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 jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then laura had a life insurance policy, and laura did not have a life insurance policy, hence the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased. | If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then laura had a life insurance policy | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | modus tollen | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | Laura had a life insurance policy | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then laura had a life insurance policy, and laura did not have a life insurance policy, hence the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the baby is crying loudly, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, which establishes that the baby is crying loudly. | If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the baby is crying loudly | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | The baby is crying loudly | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | The baby is crying loudly | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | The baby is not crying loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then the baby is crying loudly, and a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, which establishes that the baby is crying loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, hence a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe. | If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | modus ponen | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | No coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, hence a 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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, which establishes that a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home. | If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | modus ponen | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, which establishes that a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, so a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene. | If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | A gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | modus ponen | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, so a 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|>
|
The cat is sleeping on the couch, as if laura's wedding ring is missing then the cat is sleeping on the couch and laura's wedding ring is missing. | If laura's wedding ring is missing then the cat is sleeping on the couch | Laura's wedding ring is missing | The cat is sleeping on the couch | modus ponen | Laura's wedding ring is missing | The cat is sleeping on the couch | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is sleeping on the couch, as if laura's wedding ring is missing then the cat is sleeping on the couch and laura's wedding ring is missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, because if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape 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 john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, because if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape and surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, which shows that laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal. | If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | modus ponen | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, which shows that laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and the weather is mild and pleasant, so it can be concluded that john davis had a cache of illegal firearms. | If the weather is mild and pleasant then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms | The weather is mild and pleasant | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | modus ponen | The weather is mild and pleasant | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | The weather is not mild and pleasant | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is mild and pleasant then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and the weather is mild and pleasant, so it can be concluded that john davis had a cache of illegal firearms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, which establishes that sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily. | If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | modus ponen | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, which establishes that sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, which implies that a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene. | If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | modus ponen | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | 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 the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, which implies that a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence 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 baby is not crying in the stroller, as if the baby is crying in the stroller then the movie is a horror film and the movie is not a horror film. | If the baby is crying in the stroller then the movie is a horror film | The movie is not a horror film | The baby is not crying in the stroller | modus tollen | The baby is crying in the stroller | The movie is a horror film | The baby is not crying in the stroller | The movie is not a horror film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not crying in the stroller, as if the baby is crying in the stroller then the movie is a horror film and the movie is not a horror film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not written by a famous author, since if the book is written by a famous author then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house and no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house. | If the book is written by a famous author then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | The book is not written by a famous author | modus tollen | The book is written by a famous author | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The book is not written by a famous author | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not written by a famous author, since if the book is written by a famous author then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house and no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, which implies that no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | modus tollen | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, which implies that no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, hence emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder. | If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | modus tollen | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | 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 emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, hence emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a thriller then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and the movie is a thriller, therefore a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow. | If the movie is a thriller then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | The movie is a thriller | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | modus ponen | The movie is a thriller | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | The movie is not a thriller | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a thriller then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and the movie is a thriller, therefore a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|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 a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and no witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the cat is not purring loudly. | If the cat is purring loudly then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The cat is not purring loudly | modus tollen | The cat is purring loudly | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The cat is not purring loudly | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring loudly then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and no witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the cat is not purring loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, because if the book is a collection of short stories then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents and the book is a collection of short stories. | If the book is a collection of short stories then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | The book is a collection of short stories | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | modus ponen | The book is a collection of short stories | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | The book is not a collection of short stories | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, because if the book is a collection of short stories then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents and the book is a collection of short stories.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the cat is eating food, and the cat is not eating food, hence the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities. | If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the cat is eating food | The cat is not eating food | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | The cat is eating food | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | The cat is not eating food | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the cat is eating food, and the cat is not eating food, hence the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then laura's laptop was found smashed, and laura's laptop was not found smashed, which establishes that sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death. | If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then laura's laptop was found smashed | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | modus tollen | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | Laura's laptop was found smashed | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then laura's laptop was found smashed, and laura's laptop was not found smashed, which establishes that sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, as if a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder and no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder. | If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | modus tollen | A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | 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: ```No bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, as if a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder and no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If dogs are not fish then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and john davis did not have a history of substance abuse, hence dogs are fish. | If dogs are not fish then john davis had a history of substance abuse | John davis did not have a history of substance abuse | Dogs are fish | modus tollen | Dogs are not fish | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | Dogs are fish | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If dogs are not fish then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and john davis did not have a history of substance abuse, hence dogs are fish.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sky is blue then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and the sky is blue, so it can be concluded that the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery. | If the sky is blue then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The sky is blue | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | modus ponen | The sky is blue | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The sky is not blue | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sky is blue then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and the sky is blue, so it can be concluded that the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the cat is purring contentedly, and the cat is not purring contentedly, thus a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags. | If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the cat is purring contentedly | The cat is not purring contentedly | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | modus tollen | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | The cat is purring contentedly | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | The cat is not purring contentedly | 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 showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the cat is purring contentedly, and the cat is not purring contentedly, thus a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.```<|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 not a sports film, as if the movie is a sports film then the weather is hot and humid and the weather is not hot and humid. | If the movie is a sports film then the weather is hot and humid | The weather is not hot and humid | The movie is not a sports film | modus tollen | The movie is a sports film | The weather is hot and humid | The movie is not a sports film | The weather is not hot and humid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a sports film, as if the movie is a sports film then the weather is hot and humid and the weather is not hot and humid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, hence a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car. | If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, hence a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the movie is a comedy, and the movie is not a comedy, therefore the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization. | If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the movie is a comedy | The movie is not a comedy | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | modus tollen | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | The movie is a comedy | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | The movie is not a comedy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the movie is a comedy, and the movie is not a comedy, therefore the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of identity theft then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and john davis had a history of identity theft, which implies that sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily. | If john davis had a history of identity theft then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | John davis had a history of identity theft | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of identity theft | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of identity theft then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and john davis had a history of identity theft, which implies that sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then a gas leak was detected in the basement, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, which establishes that a gas leak was detected in the basement. | If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then a gas leak was detected in the basement | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | A gas leak was detected in the basement | modus ponen | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | A gas leak was detected in the basement | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then a gas leak was detected in the basement, and the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, which establishes that a gas leak was detected in the basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, and the dog is barking at the mailman, so it can be concluded that the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The dog is barking at the mailman | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the mailman | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The dog is not barking at the mailman | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, and the dog is barking at the mailman, so it can be concluded that the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with a toy car then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, therefore the baby is not playing with a toy car. | If the baby is playing with a toy car then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The baby is not playing with a toy car | modus tollen | The baby is playing with a toy car | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The baby is not playing with a toy car | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with a toy car then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, therefore the baby is not playing with a toy 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 car is a sedan then the book is on the table, and the car is a sedan, so the book is on the table. | If the car is a sedan then the book is on the table | The car is a sedan | The book is on the table | modus ponen | The car is a sedan | The book is on the table | The car is not a sedan | The book is not on the table | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a sedan then the book is on the table, and the car is a sedan, so 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|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, which establishes that emily had recently taken a self-defense course. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, which establishes that emily had recently taken a self-defense course.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, hence john davis did not have bruises on his arms. | If john davis had bruises on his arms then the baby is crawling | The baby is not crawling | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | modus tollen | John Davis had bruises on his arms | The baby is crawling | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | The baby is not crawling | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had bruises on his arms then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, hence john davis did not have bruises on his arms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, so no bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway. | If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | modus tollen | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | 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 a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, so no bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size 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 jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization 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 jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization. | If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization 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 jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | modus tollen | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | 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 jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization 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 jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura had recently changed her social media passwords, since if a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then laura had recently changed her social media passwords and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store. | If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then laura had recently changed her social media passwords | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | modus ponen | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura had recently changed her social media passwords, since if a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then laura had recently changed her social media passwords and a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, which implies that the baby is crawling towards the cat. | If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then the baby is crawling towards the cat | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | The baby is crawling towards the cat | modus ponen | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | The baby is crawling towards the cat | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, which implies that the baby is crawling towards the cat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, therefore the sun is shining brightly in the sky. | If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the sun is shining brightly in the sky | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | modus ponen | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, therefore the sun is shining brightly 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 detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, and the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, therefore detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects. | If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | modus tollen | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | 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: ```If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, and the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, therefore 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|>
|
If the eiffel tower is in paris then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, hence the eiffel tower is not in paris. | If the eiffel tower is in paris then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | modus tollen | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the eiffel tower is in paris then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, hence 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 a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, so a broken window was found in laura's bedroom. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | modus ponen | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, so a broken window was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the stroller then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, so the baby is not crying in the stroller. | If the baby is crying in the stroller then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The baby is not crying in the stroller | modus tollen | The baby is crying in the stroller | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The baby is not crying in the stroller | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying in the stroller then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, so the baby is not crying in the stroller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the nightstand then the book is interesting, and the book is not interesting, which shows that the book is not on the nightstand. | If the book is on the nightstand then the book is interesting | The book is not interesting | The book is not on the nightstand | modus tollen | The book is on the nightstand | The book is interesting | The book is not on the nightstand | The book is not interesting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the nightstand then the book is interesting, and the book is not interesting, which shows that the book is not on the nightstand.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, since if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the movie is a comedy-drama and the movie is not a comedy-drama. | If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the movie is a comedy-drama | The movie is not a comedy-drama | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | modus tollen | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | The movie is a comedy-drama | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | The movie is not a comedy-drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, since if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the movie is a comedy-drama and the movie is not a comedy-drama.```<|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 the baby is playing with blocks, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, so it can be concluded that the baby is playing with blocks. | If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the baby is playing with blocks | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The baby is playing with blocks | modus ponen | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The baby is playing with blocks | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | 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 stolen van was registered in a fake name then the baby is playing with blocks, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, so it can be concluded that the baby is playing with blocks.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If water is h2o then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and water is h2o, hence a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene. | If water is h2o then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | Water is h2o | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | modus ponen | Water is H2O | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | Water is not H2O | 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 water is h2o then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and water is h2o, hence a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence 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|>
|
No threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, as if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime. | If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | modus tollen | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, as if a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, since if laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john. | If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | modus ponen | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, since if laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene and 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 the cat is sleeping in the sun then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, and the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information, which implies that the cat is not sleeping in the sun. | If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping in the sun | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, and the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information, which implies that the cat is not sleeping in the sun.```<|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 life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, thus the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary. | If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | modus tollen | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, thus the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If water is h2o then the sky is blue, and water is h2o, hence the sky is blue. | If water is h2o then the sky is blue | Water is h2o | The sky is blue | modus ponen | Water is H2O | The sky is blue | Water is not H2O | The sky is not blue | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If water is h2o then the sky is blue, and water is h2o, hence the sky is blue.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, which implies that laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed. | If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | modus ponen | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, which implies that laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, as if a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder. | If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | modus ponen | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, as if a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape and a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the dog is barking at the door, and the dog is not barking at the door, therefore surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the dog is barking at the door | The dog is not barking at the door | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | modus tollen | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The dog is barking at the door | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the dog is barking at the door, and the dog is not barking at the door, therefore surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, which implies that surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store. | If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, which implies that surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the phone is ringing, and the phone is not ringing, therefore no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet. | If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the phone is ringing | The phone is not ringing | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | modus tollen | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The phone is ringing | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The phone is not ringing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the phone is ringing, and the phone is not ringing, therefore no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a bestseller then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and the book is a bestseller, which implies that the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect. | If the book is a bestseller then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The book is a bestseller | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | modus ponen | The book is a bestseller | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The book is not a bestseller | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a bestseller then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and the book is a bestseller, which implies that the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, because if richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the book is interesting and the book is not interesting. | If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the book is interesting | The book is not interesting | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | modus tollen | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The book is interesting | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | The book is not interesting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, because if richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the book is interesting and the book is not interesting.```<|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 a toy car, since if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the baby is playing with a toy car and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene. | If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the baby is playing with a toy car | A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | The baby is playing with a toy car | modus ponen | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | The baby is playing with a toy car | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | The baby is not playing with a toy car | 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 a toy car, since if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the baby is playing with a toy car and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence 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|>
|
John davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents, because if john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then the apple is red and the apple is not red. | If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then the apple is red | The apple is not red | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | modus tollen | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | The apple is red | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | The apple is not red | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents, because if john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then the apple is red and the apple is not red.```<|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 overhead then the book is a mystery novel, and the book is not a mystery novel, which shows that the sun is not shining brightly overhead. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead then the book is a mystery novel | The book is not a mystery novel | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | The book is a mystery novel | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | The book is not a mystery novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly overhead then the book is a mystery novel, and the book is not a mystery novel, which shows that the sun is not shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of financial problems then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a history of financial problems. | If john davis had a history of financial problems then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of financial problems | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of financial problems then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, so it can be concluded that john davis did not have a history of financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, therefore a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair. | If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | John davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | modus tollen | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | 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 diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, therefore a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with blocks then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, and the baby is playing with blocks, thus the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. | If the baby is playing with blocks then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The baby is playing with blocks | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | modus ponen | The baby is playing with blocks | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The baby is not playing with blocks | 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: ```If the baby is playing with blocks then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, and the baby is playing with blocks, thus the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt 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 car is parked on the street then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, thus the car is not parked on the street. | If the car is parked on the street then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The car is not parked on the street | modus tollen | The car is parked on the street | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The car is not parked on the street | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is parked on the street then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, thus the car is not parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents, thus a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | John davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents, thus a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's phone records show calls to 911, since if the sun is shining brightly overhead then laura's phone records show calls to 911 and the sun is shining brightly overhead. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead then laura's phone records show calls to 911 | The sun is shining brightly overhead | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | modus ponen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | 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: ```Laura's phone records show calls to 911, since if the sun is shining brightly overhead then laura's phone records show calls to 911 and the sun is shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns, since if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns 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. | If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns 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 victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | 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: ```The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns, since if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, therefore a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, therefore a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then john davis had a history of identity theft, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, hence john davis had a history of identity theft. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then john davis had a history of identity theft | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | John Davis had a history of identity theft | modus ponen | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | John Davis had a history of identity theft | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then john davis had a history of identity theft, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, hence john davis had a history of identity theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, thus laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis. | If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, thus laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, so a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits. | If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then laura's dog was found locked in a closet | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | modus tollen | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | 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 homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, so a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.```<|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 cat was found abandoned outside her house, because if laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house and laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions. | If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | modus ponen | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, because if laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house and laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, which shows that emily had not recently taken a self-defense course. | If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | modus tollen | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, which shows that emily had not recently taken a self-defense course.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits