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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, as if a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene. | If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | modus tollen | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | 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: ```A homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits, as if a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, thus a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim. | If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | modus ponen | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | 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 officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, thus a 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|>
|
The baby is laughing at the toy, since if detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the baby is laughing at the toy and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse. | If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the baby is laughing at the toy | Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | The baby is laughing at the toy | modus ponen | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | The baby is laughing at the toy | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | The baby is not laughing at the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is laughing at the toy, since if detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the baby is laughing at the toy and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the baby is not drinking from a bottle, so it can be concluded that officer brown did not discover a hidden basement. | If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the baby is drinking from a bottle | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | modus tollen | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | The baby is drinking from a bottle | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the baby is not drinking from a bottle, so it can be concluded that officer brown did not discover a hidden basement.```<|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 car was not found with a slashed tire, because if laura's car was found with a slashed tire then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | modus tollen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | 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: ```Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, because if laura's car was found with a slashed tire then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim'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|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and the dog is barking at the mailman, which establishes that the dog is barking at the squirrel. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then the dog is barking at the squirrel | The dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is barking at the squirrel | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is barking at the squirrel | The dog is not barking at the mailman | 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: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and the dog is barking at the mailman, which establishes that the dog is barking at the squirrel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, and the suspect's name is john davis, which implies that the suspect had a history of violence against the victim. | If the suspect's name is john davis then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The suspect's name is john davis | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | modus ponen | The suspect's name is John Davis | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The suspect's name is not John Davis | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's name is john davis then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, and the suspect's name is john davis, which implies that the suspect had a history of violence against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, and no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, which shows that the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect. | If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | No stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | 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 the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, and no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, which shows that the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is written by a famous author, because if laura's mail was tampered with then the book is written by a famous author and laura's mail was tampered with. | If laura's mail was tampered with then the book is written by a famous author | Laura's mail was tampered with | The book is written by a famous author | modus ponen | Laura's mail was tampered with | The book is written by a famous author | Laura's mail was not tampered with | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is written by a famous author, because if laura's mail was tampered with then the book is written by a famous author and laura's mail was tampered with.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a family film, because if the movie is a family film then the book is a bestseller and the book is not a bestseller. | If the movie is a family film then the book is a bestseller | The book is not a bestseller | The movie is not a family film | modus tollen | The movie is a family film | The book is a bestseller | The movie is not a family film | The book is not a bestseller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a family film, because if the movie is a family film then the book is a bestseller and the book is not a bestseller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, so it can be concluded that the murder weapon was not a baseball bat. | If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | modus tollen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, so it can be concluded that the murder weapon was not a baseball bat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the suspect had no history of mental health issues, which implies that john davis had not recently purchased a firearm. | If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then the suspect had a history of mental health issues | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | modus tollen | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | 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 john davis had recently purchased a firearm then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the suspect had no history of mental health issues, which implies that john davis had not recently purchased a firearm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and laura did not have a secret storage room in her house, hence the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted. | If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then laura had a secret storage room in her house | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | modus tollen | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and laura did not have a secret storage room in her house, hence the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact, so detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement. | If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | modus tollen | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact, so detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a musical film then john davis had a history of financial problems, and the movie is a musical film, so john davis had a history of financial problems. | If the movie is a musical film then john davis had a history of financial problems | The movie is a musical film | John Davis had a history of financial problems | modus ponen | The movie is a musical film | John Davis had a history of financial problems | The movie is not a musical film | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a musical film then john davis had a history of financial problems, and the movie is a musical film, so john davis had a history of financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, since if the movie is a science fiction film then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene and the movie is a science fiction film. | If the movie is a science fiction film then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The movie is a science fiction film | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | modus ponen | The movie is a science fiction film | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The movie is not a science fiction film | 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: ```A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, since if the movie is a science fiction film then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene and the movie is a science fiction film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, which shows that laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident. | If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | modus ponen | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, which shows that laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, so the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim. | If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | modus ponen | The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder | 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 the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, so 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 a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, which implies that a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo. | If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | modus tollen | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement, and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement, which implies that 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 diary contains mentions of threats from john then the movie is a horror film, and the movie is not a horror film, therefore laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john. | If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then the movie is a horror film | The movie is not a horror film | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | modus tollen | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | The movie is a horror film | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | The movie is not a horror film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then the movie is a horror film, and the movie is not a horror film, therefore laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, because if a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene. | If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | modus ponen | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | 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 victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, because if a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and 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|>
|
Detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, since if detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the dog is barking and the dog is not barking. | If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the dog is barking | The dog is not barking | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | modus tollen | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The dog is barking | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The dog is not barking | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, since if detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the dog is barking and the dog is not barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a collection of short stories then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and the book is a collection of short stories, hence a stolen car was reported near the crime scene. | If the book is a collection of short stories then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene | The book is a collection of short stories | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | modus ponen | The book is a collection of short stories | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | The book is not a collection of short stories | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a collection of short stories then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and the book is a collection of short stories, hence a stolen car was reported near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and the baby is not crawling towards the cat, therefore footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene. | If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the baby is crawling towards the cat | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | modus tollen | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | The baby is crawling towards the cat | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and the baby is not crawling towards the cat, therefore 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 the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, which establishes that the sun is not setting slowly in the sky. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | 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 sun is setting slowly in the sky then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, which establishes 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|>
|
The dog is barking at the neighbors, as if john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the dog is barking at the neighbors and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe. | If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the dog is barking at the neighbors | John davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | The dog is barking at the neighbors | modus ponen | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | The dog is barking at the neighbors | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | 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: ```The dog is barking at the neighbors, as if john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then the dog is barking at the neighbors and john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and the dog is not barking at the squirrel, which implies that the sun is not shining brightly. | If the sun is shining brightly then the dog is barking at the squirrel | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | The sun is not shining brightly | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly | The dog is barking at the squirrel | The sun is not shining brightly | 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: ```If the sun is shining brightly then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and the dog is not barking at the squirrel, which implies that the sun is not shining brightly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and the victim's name is sarah mitchell, hence laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis. | If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis | The victim's name is sarah mitchell | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | modus ponen | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis, and the victim's name is sarah mitchell, hence laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, which shows that the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead. | If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | modus ponen | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, and the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, which shows that the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, therefore a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned. | If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | modus ponen | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, therefore a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, since if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily. | If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | modus ponen | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to 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 had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, since if a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, as if the baby is crawling towards the cat then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently and the baby is crawling towards the cat. | If the baby is crawling towards the cat then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | The baby is crawling towards the cat | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the cat | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, as if the baby is crawling towards the cat then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently 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|>
|
If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, so it can be concluded that the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain. | If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | modus tollen | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river, so it can be concluded that the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the dog is barking, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, thus the dog is barking. | If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the dog is barking | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | The dog is barking | modus ponen | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | The dog is barking | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | The dog is not barking | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then the dog is barking, and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, thus the dog is barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the baby is crying in the stroller, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, hence the baby is crying in the stroller. | If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the baby is crying in the stroller | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The baby is crying in the stroller | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The baby is crying in the stroller | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The baby is not crying in the stroller | 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 heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then the baby is crying in the stroller, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, hence the baby is crying in the stroller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, because if the book is written by a famous author then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker and the book is written by a famous author. | If the book is written by a famous author then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The book is written by a famous author | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | modus ponen | The book is written by a famous author | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The book is not written by a famous author | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, because if the book is written by a famous author then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker and the book is written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly, as if the cat is sleeping soundly then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway and no bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway. | If the cat is sleeping soundly then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | The cat is not sleeping soundly | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping soundly | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | The cat is not sleeping soundly | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | 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 sleeping soundly, as if the cat is sleeping soundly then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway and no bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, since if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment and the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment. | If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | modus tollen | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | 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: ```Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, since if laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment and the victim's car keys were not 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|>
|
If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, hence the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information. | If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | modus ponen | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, hence the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the book is a bestseller, and the book is not a bestseller, so it can be concluded that sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy. | If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the book is a bestseller | The book is not a bestseller | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | modus tollen | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The book is a bestseller | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The book is not a bestseller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy then the book is a bestseller, and the book is not a bestseller, so it can be concluded that sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the nightstand then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and the book is on the nightstand, thus emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon. | If the book is on the nightstand then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The book is on the nightstand | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | modus ponen | The book is on the nightstand | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The book is not on the nightstand | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the nightstand then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and the book is on the nightstand, thus emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is not shining brightly overhead, because if the sun is shining brightly overhead 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. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead 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 sun is not shining brightly overhead | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | 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: ```The sun is not shining brightly overhead, because if the sun is shining brightly overhead 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not a biography, as if the book is a biography then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement and detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement. | If the book is a biography then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | Detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The book is not a biography | modus tollen | The book is a biography | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The book is not a biography | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not a biography, as if the book is a biography then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement and detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with blocks then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and the baby is playing with blocks, which shows that a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits. | If the baby is playing with blocks then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits | The baby is playing with blocks | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | modus ponen | The baby is playing with blocks | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | The baby is not playing with blocks | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with blocks then a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, and the baby is playing with blocks, which shows that a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's jewelry box was emptied then a shattered vase was found in the hallway, and a shattered vase was not found in the hallway, which shows that laura's jewelry box was not emptied. | If laura's jewelry box was emptied then a shattered vase was found in the hallway | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | modus tollen | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's jewelry box was emptied then a shattered vase was found in the hallway, and a shattered vase was not found in the hallway, which shows that laura's jewelry box was not emptied.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, hence a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession. | If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | modus ponen | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | 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 the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, hence 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 a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, thus no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet. | If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | modus tollen | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home 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: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, thus no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is parked in the garage then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, which implies that the car is not parked in the garage. | If the car is parked in the garage then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | No suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | The car is not parked in the garage | modus tollen | The car is parked in the garage | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | The car is not parked in the garage | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is parked in the garage then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, which implies that the car is not parked in the garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's mail was tampered with, because if a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then laura's mail was tampered with and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then laura's mail was tampered with | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | Laura's mail was tampered with | modus ponen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | Laura's mail was tampered with | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | Laura's mail was not tampered with | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's mail was tampered with, because if a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then laura's mail was tampered with and a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, which establishes that a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus ponen | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | 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 laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, which establishes 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 the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, so a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus ponen | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | 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 suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, so 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 the tree is shedding leaves then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and the tree is shedding leaves, which implies that a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace. | If the tree is shedding leaves then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The tree is shedding leaves | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | modus ponen | The tree is shedding leaves | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The tree is not shedding leaves | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is shedding leaves then a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace, and the tree is shedding leaves, which implies that 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|>
|
Laura's car was found with a slashed tire, since if a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then laura's car was found with a slashed tire and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene. | If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then laura's car was found with a slashed tire | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | modus ponen | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | 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: ```Laura's car was found with a slashed tire, since if a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then laura's car was found with a slashed tire and 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 suspect had a history of mental health issues then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, which establishes that a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry. | If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, and the suspect had a history of mental health issues, which establishes that a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the movie is a documentary, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, therefore the movie is a documentary. | If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the movie is a documentary | Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The movie is a documentary | modus ponen | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The movie is a documentary | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The movie is not a documentary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the movie is a documentary, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, therefore the movie is a documentary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, because if detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway and no bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway. | If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | modus tollen | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, because if detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway and no bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of financial problems then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect, so john davis did not have a history of financial problems. | If john davis had a history of financial problems then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of financial problems | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of financial problems then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect, so john davis did not have a history of financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the television then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, which implies that the dog is not barking at the television. | If the dog is barking at the television then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | The dog is not barking at the television | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the television | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | The dog is not barking at the television | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument 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: ```If the dog is barking at the television then emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, and emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, which implies that the dog is not barking at the television.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cloudy and rainy then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk, thus the weather is not cloudy and rainy. | If the weather is cloudy and rainy then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | modus tollen | The weather is cloudy and rainy | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cloudy and rainy then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk, thus the weather is not cloudy and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, thus a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument. | If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | modus ponen | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, thus a neighbor reported 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|>
|
If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, therefore the cat is sleeping on the couch. | If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the cat is sleeping on the couch | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The cat is sleeping on the couch | modus ponen | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The cat is sleeping on the couch | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, therefore the cat is sleeping on the couch.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the neighbors then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, and the dog is barking at the neighbors, which establishes that officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store. | If the dog is barking at the neighbors then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | The dog is barking at the neighbors | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the neighbors | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the neighbors then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, and the dog is barking at the neighbors, which establishes that officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the baby is crying in the car, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, thus the baby is crying in the car. | If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the baby is crying in the car | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | The baby is crying in the car | modus ponen | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | The baby is crying in the car | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | The baby is not crying in the car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then the baby is crying in the car, and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, thus the baby is crying in the car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, and the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions, hence footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene. | If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | modus tollen | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, and the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions, hence 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 the baby is teething then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and the baby is teething, hence the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted. | If the baby is teething then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The baby is teething | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | modus ponen | The baby is teething | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The baby is not teething | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | 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 store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and the baby is teething, hence the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is tall then the sun is shining through the window, and the sun is not shining through the window, hence the tree is not tall. | If the tree is tall then the sun is shining through the window | The sun is not shining through the window | The tree is not tall | modus tollen | The tree is tall | The sun is shining through the window | The tree is not tall | The sun is not shining through the window | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is tall then the sun is shining through the window, and the sun is not shining through the window, hence the tree is not tall.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, since if a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | modus ponen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | 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 victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, since if a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky, which implies that the baby is not crying. | If the baby is crying then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | The baby is not crying | modus tollen | The baby is crying | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | The baby is not crying | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky, which implies that the baby is not crying.```<|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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, so it can be concluded that the victim's name is sarah mitchell. | If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then the victim's name is sarah mitchell | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | modus ponen | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | 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 alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, so it can be concluded that the victim's name is sarah mitchell.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the victim's name is sarah mitchell, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, which shows that the victim's name is sarah mitchell. | If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the victim's name is sarah mitchell | The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | modus ponen | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | 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 name is sarah mitchell, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, which shows that the victim's name is sarah mitchell.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, which establishes that a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake. | If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | modus tollen | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, and the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, which establishes that a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the movie is a drama, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, which implies that the movie is a drama. | If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the movie is a drama | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The movie is a drama | modus ponen | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The movie is a drama | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | The movie is not a drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased then the movie is a drama, and the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, which implies that the movie is a drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of financial problems then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and john davis did not have a history of anger management issues, therefore john davis did not have a history of financial problems. | If john davis had a history of financial problems then john davis had a history of anger management issues | John davis did not have a history of anger management issues | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of financial problems | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of financial problems then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and john davis did not have a history of anger management issues, therefore john davis did not have a history of financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, and the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain, which shows that no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | modus tollen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, and the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain, which shows that no security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and john davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck, which implies that a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits. | If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck | John davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | modus tollen | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and john davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck, which implies that a homeless man named charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, as if the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom and no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom. | If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | modus tollen | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | 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 victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, as if the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user 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 sun is setting slowly in the sky then the baby is crying in the stroller, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, which establishes that the baby is crying in the stroller. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the baby is crying in the stroller | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The baby is crying in the stroller | modus ponen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The baby is crying in the stroller | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | The baby is not crying in the stroller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the baby is crying in the stroller, and the sun is setting slowly in the sky, which establishes that the baby is crying in the stroller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, therefore the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery. | If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | modus tollen | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | 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 store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, therefore the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, as if the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the suspect had a history of mental health issues and the suspect had no history of mental health issues. | If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the suspect had a history of mental health issues | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | 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: ```The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, as if the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the suspect had a history of mental health issues and the suspect had no 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|>
|
If the movie is a documentary then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and the movie is a documentary, which implies that the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools. | If the movie is a documentary then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The movie is a documentary | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | modus ponen | The movie is a documentary | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | The movie is not a documentary | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a documentary then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and the movie is a documentary, which implies that the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the car is parked in the garage, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, therefore the car is parked in the garage. | If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the car is parked in the garage | A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | The car is parked in the garage | modus ponen | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | The car is parked in the garage | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | The car is not parked in the garage | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then the car is parked in the garage, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, therefore the car is parked in the garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the stroller then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and the baby is crying in the stroller, so it can be concluded that witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist. | If the baby is crying in the stroller then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | The baby is crying in the stroller | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | modus ponen | The baby is crying in the stroller | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | The baby is not crying in the stroller | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying in the stroller then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and the baby is crying in the stroller, so it can be concluded that witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sky is not blue, because if the sky is blue then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store and officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store. | If the sky is blue then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | Officer turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The sky is not blue | modus tollen | The sky is blue | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The sky is not blue | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sky is not blue, because if the sky is blue then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store and 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 emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then the tree is tall, and the tree is not tall, which shows that emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder. | If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then the tree is tall | The tree is not tall | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | modus tollen | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | The tree is tall | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | 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 emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then the tree is tall, and the tree is not tall, which shows that emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument 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 emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the baby is playing with toys, and the baby is not playing with toys, therefore emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle. | If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the baby is playing with toys | The baby is not playing with toys | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | modus tollen | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The baby is playing with toys | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The baby is not playing with toys | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle then the baby is playing with toys, and the baby is not playing with toys, therefore emily's social media posts did not hint 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|>
|
No bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, as if a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop and no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop. | If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | modus tollen | A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, as if a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop and no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, as if the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster. | If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, as if the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, so it can be concluded that a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | modus ponen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | 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 laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, so it can be concluded 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 a broken chair was found in the kitchen then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, thus forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing. | If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | modus ponen | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | 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: ```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, thus forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim'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|>
|
If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, thus 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 a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | 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 | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, thus 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 the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then the victim's name is laura martinez, and the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, which establishes that the victim's name is laura martinez. | If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then the victim's name is laura martinez | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | modus ponen | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The victim's name is Laura Martinez | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The victim's name is not Laura Martinez | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then the victim's name is laura martinez, and the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, which establishes that the victim's name is laura martinez.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, which implies that the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m. | If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | modus ponen | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, which implies that the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, as if the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement and the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data. | If the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | modus ponen | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, as if the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement 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 john davis had a history of anger management issues then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, which shows that john davis did not have a history of anger management issues. | If john davis had a history of anger management issues then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of anger management issues then emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, which shows that 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 john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, hence john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms. | If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it | The murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | modus tollen | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, hence john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, hence the cat is not sleeping in the sun. | If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the sun is setting slowly | The sun is not setting slowly | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping in the sun | The sun is setting slowly | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | The sun is not setting slowly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, hence the cat is not sleeping in the sun.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not purring, because if the cat is purring then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement and detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement. | If the cat is purring then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | Detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The cat is not purring | modus tollen | The cat is purring | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The cat is not purring | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is not purring, because if the cat is purring then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement and detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement.```<|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 no history of mental health issues, because if the suspect had a history of mental health issues then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery. | If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had no history of mental health issues, because if the suspect had a history of mental health issues then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, so it can be concluded that the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m. | If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | modus tollen | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | The store's alarm system was not disabled 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 robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery, and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, so it can be concluded that the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m.```<|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 security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, therefore a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene. | If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | modus ponen | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, therefore a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.