Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.
stringlengths 74
421
| If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
stringlengths 36
192
| Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 788
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street
stringclasses 788
values | modus ponen
stringclasses 2
values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1
stringclasses 394
values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street
stringclasses 394
values | True
bool 1
class | text
stringlengths 453
800
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, thus 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 john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | John davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | 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 | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, thus 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|>
|
The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim, since if the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the dog is barking at the door and the dog is not barking at the door. | If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the dog is barking at the door | The dog is not barking at the door | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | modus tollen | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The dog is barking at the door | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | 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: ```The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim, since if the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the dog is barking at the door and the dog is not barking at the door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, so richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery. | If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | modus ponen | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, so richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cold and rainy then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and the weather is cold and rainy, so john davis had a history of substance abuse. | If the weather is cold and rainy then john davis had a history of substance abuse | The weather is cold and rainy | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | modus ponen | The weather is cold and rainy | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | The weather is not cold and rainy | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and rainy then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and the weather is cold and rainy, so john davis had a history of substance abuse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, which establishes that no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | modus tollen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, which establishes that no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, since if the book is a romance novel then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead and the book is a romance novel. | If the book is a romance novel then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The book is a romance novel | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | modus ponen | The book is a romance novel | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The book is not a romance novel | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, since if the book is a romance novel then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead and the book is a romance novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a documentary, as if the movie is a documentary then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene. | If the movie is a documentary then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The movie is not a documentary | modus tollen | The movie is a documentary | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The movie is not a documentary | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a documentary, as if the movie is a documentary then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, which implies that a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene. | If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | modus ponen | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | 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 officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, which implies that a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, so it can be concluded that the eiffel tower is in paris. | If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the eiffel tower is in paris | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | modus ponen | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, so it can be concluded that the eiffel tower is in paris.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, which implies that a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar. | If laura's social media accounts were hacked then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar | modus ponen | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's social media accounts were hacked then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, which implies that a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home, which shows that the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation. | If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | modus tollen | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home, which shows that the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, which shows that footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene. | If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | modus tollen | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, which shows that footprints matching john's shoes were not found near 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 paris is in france then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, and paris is in france, so a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If paris is in france then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | Paris is in france | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | modus ponen | Paris is in France | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Paris is not in France | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If paris is in france then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, and paris is in france, so a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying loudly then the water is warm, and the baby is crying loudly, so it can be concluded that the water is warm. | If the baby is crying loudly then the water is warm | The baby is crying loudly | The water is warm | modus ponen | The baby is crying loudly | The water is warm | The baby is not crying loudly | The water is not warm | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying loudly then the water is warm, and the baby is crying loudly, so it can be concluded that the water is warm.```<|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 diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, because if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | A forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | modus ponen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, because if a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker and a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, so a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction. | If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction | A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | modus ponen | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, so a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the cat is eating food, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, so the cat is eating food. | If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the cat is eating food | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The cat is eating food | modus ponen | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The cat is eating food | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | 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 laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the cat is eating food, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, so the cat is eating food.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, which establishes that emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder. | If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | John davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | modus tollen | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, and john davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, which establishes that emily does not claim to have lost her phone 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 laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, which establishes that the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest. | If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | modus ponen | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and laura had recently changed her social media passwords, which establishes that the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's passport is missing, since if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then laura's passport is missing and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft. | If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then laura's passport is missing | Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Laura's passport is missing | modus ponen | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Laura's passport is missing | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | Laura's passport is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's passport is missing, since if emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then laura's passport is missing and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, therefore sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily. | If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | modus ponen | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, therefore sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, so a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store. | If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | modus tollen | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, so a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, thus 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | 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 | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | 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 sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, thus 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|>
|
The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, because if richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine. | If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | 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: ```The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, because if richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine.```<|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 missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, which shows that the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim. | If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | A missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | modus ponen | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, which shows that the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about 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 phone is ringing then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and the phone is ringing, which establishes that emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder. | If the phone is ringing then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The phone is ringing | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | modus ponen | The phone is ringing | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The phone is not ringing | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the phone is ringing then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and the phone is ringing, which establishes that emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, thus no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | modus tollen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, thus no witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, so a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus ponen | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, so a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, thus a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession. | If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | modus ponen | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, thus a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining through the window then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the sun is shining through the window, hence the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest. | If the sun is shining through the window then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The sun is shining through the window | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | modus ponen | The sun is shining through the window | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The sun is not shining through the window | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining through the window then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the sun is shining through the window, hence the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of stalking laura then the dog is barking at the mailman, and john davis had a history of stalking laura, so it can be concluded that the dog is barking at the mailman. | If john davis had a history of stalking laura then the dog is barking at the mailman | John davis had a history of stalking laura | The dog is barking at the mailman | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | The dog is barking at the mailman | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | The dog is not barking at the mailman | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of stalking laura then the dog is barking at the mailman, and john davis had a history of stalking laura, so it can be concluded that the dog is barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, so a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene. | If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | modus ponen | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | 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 forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, so a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, hence a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, hence 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|>
|
Detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, since if the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter and the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery. | If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | modus ponen | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, since if the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter and the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, because if officer brown discovered a hidden basement then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery and surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery. | If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | modus tollen | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, because if officer brown discovered a hidden basement then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery and surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, since if emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle. | If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | modus ponen | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, since if emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster and emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, since if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors. | If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | modus ponen | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, since if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door and laura had recently changed the locks on her doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, so it can be concluded that a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | modus ponen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim in public, so it can be concluded that a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of anger management issues then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, which implies that a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard. | If john davis had a history of anger management issues then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | John davis had a history of anger management issues | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of anger management issues then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, and john davis had a history of anger management issues, which implies that a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the tree is tall, and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, so it can be concluded that the tree is tall. | If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the tree is tall | Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The tree is tall | modus ponen | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The tree is tall | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The tree is not tall | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then the tree is tall, and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, so it can be concluded that the tree is tall.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, so it can be concluded that the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | modus ponen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, so it can be concluded that the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking at the squirrel, because if a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the dog is barking at the squirrel and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace. | If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the dog is barking at the squirrel | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The dog is barking at the squirrel | modus ponen | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The dog is barking at the squirrel | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking at the squirrel, because if a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the dog is barking at the squirrel and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If it is raining today then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and it is raining today, which establishes that the dog is barking at the neighbors. | If it is raining today then the dog is barking at the neighbors | It is raining today | The dog is barking at the neighbors | modus ponen | It is raining today | The dog is barking at the neighbors | It is not raining today | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If it is raining today then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and it is raining today, which establishes that the dog is barking at the neighbors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, as if the baby is crawling towards the cat then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed and the baby is crawling towards the cat. | If the baby is crawling towards the cat then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The baby is crawling towards the cat | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the cat | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, as if the baby is crawling towards the cat then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed and 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|>
|
A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, since if a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the baby is teething and the baby is not teething. | If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the baby is teething | The baby is not teething | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | modus tollen | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | The baby is teething | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | The baby is not teething | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, since if a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then the baby is teething and the baby is not teething.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, which shows that a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene. | If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | modus ponen | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | 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: ```If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker, which shows that a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, so the weather is not mild and pleasant. | If the weather is mild and pleasant then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | Detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | The weather is not mild and pleasant | modus tollen | The weather is mild and pleasant | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The weather is not mild and pleasant | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is mild and pleasant then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, so the weather is not mild and pleasant.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, and richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery, so no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene. | If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery | Richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, and richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery, so no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the baby is teething, and the baby is not teething, thus the baby is not crawling towards the toy. | If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the baby is teething | The baby is not teething | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The baby is teething | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | The baby is not teething | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the baby is teething, and the baby is not teething, thus the baby is not crawling towards the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then laura had installed a home security system, and laura had not installed a home security system, which shows that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then laura had installed a home security system | Laura had not installed a home security system | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | Laura had installed a home security system | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | Laura had not installed a home security system | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then laura had installed a home security system, and laura had not installed a home security system, which shows that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the baby is teething, hence the suspect had a history of mental health issues. | If the baby is teething then the suspect had a history of mental health issues | The baby is teething | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | modus ponen | The baby is teething | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | The baby is not teething | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the baby is teething, hence the suspect had a history of mental health issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, because if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim. | If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | modus tollen | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, because if the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, because if the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder and the cat is purring contentedly on my lap. | If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | modus ponen | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on 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: ```Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, because if the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder and the cat is purring contentedly on my lap.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, which establishes that the dog is barking at the mail truck. | If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then the dog is barking at the mail truck | A neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house | The dog is barking at the mail truck | modus ponen | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | The dog is barking at the mail truck | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, which establishes that the dog is barking at the mail truck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, because if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. | If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | modus ponen | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | 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: ```A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, because if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard and 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 a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, so it can be concluded that emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment, so it can be concluded that emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and the sun is not shining brightly overhead, so emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the sun is shining brightly overhead | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | modus tollen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The sun is shining brightly overhead | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and the sun is not shining brightly overhead, so emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, since if the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data. | If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | modus ponen | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | A coded message was found in Richard Anderson's office safe | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | 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: ```A coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe, since if the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then a coded message was found in richard anderson's office safe and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then john davis had a secret storage unit, and john davis did not have a secret storage unit, so it can be concluded that laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis. | If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then john davis had a secret storage unit | John davis did not have a secret storage unit | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | modus tollen | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | John Davis had a secret storage unit | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then john davis had a secret storage unit, and john davis did not have a secret storage unit, so it can be concluded that laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the stroller then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and the baby is crying in the stroller, which shows that a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park. | If the baby is crying in the stroller then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The baby is crying in the stroller | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | modus ponen | The baby is crying in the stroller | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The baby is not crying in the stroller | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying in the stroller then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and the baby is crying in the stroller, which shows that a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of anger management issues then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, thus john davis did not have a history of anger management issues. | If john davis had a history of anger management issues then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | 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 john davis had a history of anger management issues then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, thus john davis did not have a history of anger management issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a hybrid then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, so it can be concluded that the car is not a hybrid. | If the car is a hybrid then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The car is not a hybrid | modus tollen | The car is a hybrid | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The car is not a hybrid | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a hybrid then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, so it can be concluded that the car is not 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 emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, which shows that sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house. | If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | modus ponen | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | 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: ```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, which shows that sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, as if a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine and richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine. | If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | Richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | modus tollen | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, as if a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine and richard anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, hence a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene. | If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | modus ponen | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | 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: ```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, hence a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, which shows that a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door. | If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | modus ponen | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, which shows that a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, hence a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace. | If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | modus tollen | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | 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 handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, hence a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething on a toy then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, which establishes that the baby is not teething on a toy. | If the baby is teething on a toy then laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | The baby is not teething on a toy | modus tollen | The baby is teething on a toy | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | The baby is not teething on a toy | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething on a toy then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, which establishes that the baby is not teething on a toy.```<|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 neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, since if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, since if surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway 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 officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, therefore officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store. | If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | modus tollen | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, therefore officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the weather is mild and pleasant, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, which establishes that the weather is mild and pleasant. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the weather is mild and pleasant | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The weather is mild and pleasant | modus ponen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The weather is mild and pleasant | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The weather is not mild and pleasant | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the weather is mild and pleasant, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, which establishes that the weather is mild and pleasant.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, which establishes that sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing. | If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | modus ponen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, which establishes that sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not purring loudly, since if the cat is purring loudly then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom and no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom. | If the cat is purring loudly then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | The cat is not purring loudly | modus tollen | The cat is purring loudly | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | The cat is not purring loudly | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is not purring loudly, since if the cat is purring loudly then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom and no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, hence the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment. | If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | modus ponen | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, hence the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, since if surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store and surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store. | If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, since if surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store and surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.```<|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 happy then the suspect's name is john davis, and the dog is happy, hence the suspect's name is john davis. | If the dog is happy then the suspect's name is john davis | The dog is happy | The suspect's name is John Davis | modus ponen | The dog is happy | The suspect's name is John Davis | The dog is not happy | The suspect's name is not 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 dog is happy then the suspect's name is john davis, and the dog is happy, hence the suspect's name is john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a neighbor did not hear a gunshot, which establishes that emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder. | If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then a neighbor heard a gunshot | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | modus tollen | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | A neighbor heard a gunshot | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a neighbor did not hear a gunshot, which establishes that emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, which establishes that the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery. | If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | modus ponen | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, which establishes that the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, since if the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then laura had a life insurance policy and laura did not have a life insurance policy. | If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then laura had a life insurance policy | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | modus tollen | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | Laura had a life insurance policy | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | 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: ```The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, since if the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then laura had a life insurance policy and laura did not have a life insurance policy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the movie is a thriller, and the movie is not a thriller, so a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder. | If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the movie is a thriller | The movie is not a thriller | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | modus tollen | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The movie is a thriller | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The movie is not a thriller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the movie is a thriller, and the movie is not a thriller, so a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not purring contentedly, because if the cat is purring contentedly then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors. | If the cat is purring contentedly then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | The cat is not purring contentedly | modus tollen | The cat is purring contentedly | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The cat is not purring contentedly | 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: ```The cat is not purring contentedly, because if the cat is purring contentedly then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, thus richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions. | If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | modus tollen | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, thus richard anderson's financial records did not reveal 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|>
|
Laura's passport is missing, because if laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then laura's passport is missing and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then laura's passport is missing | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | Laura's passport is missing | modus ponen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | Laura's passport is missing | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | Laura's passport is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's passport is missing, because if laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then laura's passport is missing and laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the baby is teething on a toy, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, thus the baby is teething on a toy. | If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the baby is teething on a toy | The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | The baby is teething on a toy | modus ponen | The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | The baby is teething on a toy | The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder | The baby is not teething on a toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the baby is teething on a toy, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, thus the baby is teething on a toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, so a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo. | If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the baby is teething on a toy | The baby is not teething on a toy | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | modus tollen | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | The baby is teething on a toy | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | The baby is not teething on a toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, so a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the dog is barking at the dog next door, and the dog is not barking at the dog next door, hence laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization. | If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the dog is barking at the dog next door | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | modus tollen | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The dog is barking at the dog next door | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the dog is barking at the dog next door, and the dog is not barking at the dog next door, hence laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, hence no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene. | If a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then john davis had a history of identity theft | John davis did not have a history of identity theft | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | John Davis had a history of identity theft | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | 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 witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, hence no witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked then dogs are not fish, and dogs are fish, which shows that laura's social media accounts were not hacked. | If laura's social media accounts were hacked then dogs are not fish | Dogs are fish | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | modus tollen | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | Dogs are not fish | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | Dogs are fish | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's social media accounts were hacked then dogs are not fish, and dogs are fish, which shows that laura's social media accounts were not hacked.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, since if richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine. | If richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | Richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | Richard Anderson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon's magazine | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, since if richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and richard anderson's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon's magazine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, which establishes that a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace. | If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | modus ponen | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, which establishes that a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, which shows that richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery. | If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery | The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | modus ponen | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, which shows that richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house, because if a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then laura's wedding ring is missing and laura's wedding ring is not missing. | If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then laura's wedding ring is missing | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | Laura's wedding ring is missing | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor did not report seeing john loitering around laura's house, because if a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then laura's wedding ring is missing and laura's wedding ring is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the cat then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and the baby is crawling towards the cat, so it can be concluded that a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If the baby is crawling towards the cat then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | The baby is crawling towards the cat | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the cat | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the cat then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and the baby is crawling towards the cat, so it can be concluded that a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, which implies that detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | modus ponen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, which implies that detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, so it can be concluded that john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit. | If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus tollen | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, so it can be concluded that john davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit.```<|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 mystery novel then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and the book is a mystery novel, which implies that a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack. | If the book is a mystery novel then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | The book is a mystery novel | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | modus ponen | The book is a mystery novel | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | The book is not a mystery novel | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | 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 mystery novel then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and the book is a mystery novel, which implies that a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, because if a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the book is a biography and the book is not a biography. | If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the book is a biography | The book is not a biography | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | modus tollen | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | The book is a biography | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | The book is not a biography | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, because if a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the book is a biography and the book is not a biography.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, thus the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement. | If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | modus ponen | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, and detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, thus the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, which establishes that the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime. | If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | modus tollen | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, which establishes that the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's passport is missing then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, thus laura's passport is not missing. | If laura's passport is missing then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | Laura's passport is not missing | modus tollen | Laura's passport is missing | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | Laura's passport is not missing | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's passport is missing then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, thus laura's passport is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.