Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.
stringlengths 74
421
| If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
stringlengths 36
192
| Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 788
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street
stringclasses 788
values | modus ponen
stringclasses 2
values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1
stringclasses 394
values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street
stringclasses 394
values | True
bool 1
class | text
stringlengths 453
800
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, so laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident. | If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | modus ponen | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | 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 security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, so 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 surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, which implies that surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery. | If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, which implies that surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after 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|>
|
Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, since if sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder 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. | If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder 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 | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | modus tollen | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | 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: ```Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, since if sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is a horror film, since if john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the movie is a horror film and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone. | If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the movie is a horror film | John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | The movie is a horror film | modus ponen | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The movie is a horror film | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The movie is not a horror film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is a horror film, since if john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the movie is a horror film and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of financial problems then the dog is barking at the television, and john davis had a history of financial problems, which establishes that the dog is barking at the television. | If john davis had a history of financial problems then the dog is barking at the television | John davis had a history of financial problems | The dog is barking at the television | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of financial problems | The dog is barking at the television | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | The dog is not barking at the television | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of financial problems then the dog is barking at the television, and john davis had a history of financial problems, which establishes that the dog is 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 a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then the cat is sleeping in the sun, and a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, which establishes that the cat is sleeping in the sun. | If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then the cat is sleeping in the sun | A neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house | The cat is sleeping in the sun | modus ponen | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | The cat is sleeping in the sun | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around Laura's house | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house then the cat is sleeping in the sun, and a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, which establishes that the cat is sleeping in the sun.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, which implies that a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car. | If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | modus tollen | 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 the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, which implies that a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, which shows that laura had a history of changing her locks frequently. | If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | modus ponen | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | 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: ```If sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, and sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, which shows that laura had a history of changing her locks frequently.```<|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 car then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the baby is crying in the car, so the eiffel tower is in paris. | If the baby is crying in the car then the eiffel tower is in paris | The baby is crying in the car | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | modus ponen | The baby is crying in the car | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | The baby is not crying in the car | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying in the car then the eiffel tower is in paris, and the baby is crying in the car, so the eiffel tower is in paris.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not crawling towards the toy, because if the baby is crawling towards the toy then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store. | If the baby is crawling towards the toy then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the toy | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not crawling towards the toy, because if the baby is crawling towards the toy then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then the cat is purring, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, therefore the cat is purring. | If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then the cat is purring | A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | The cat is purring | modus ponen | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | The cat is purring | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | The cat is not purring | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then the cat is purring, and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, therefore the cat is purring.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, which establishes that a neighbor did not hear a gunshot. | If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | modus tollen | A neighbor heard a gunshot | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | 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: ```If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, and the suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, which establishes that a neighbor did not hear a gunshot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then laura's house was booby-trapped, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, therefore laura's house was booby-trapped. | If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then laura's house was booby-trapped | Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder | Laura's house was booby-trapped | modus ponen | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | Laura's house was booby-trapped | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then laura's house was booby-trapped, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, therefore laura's house was booby-trapped.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky, since if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed and laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not setting slowly in the sky, since if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed and laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the baby is crying in the stroller, and the baby is not crying in the stroller, therefore a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings. | If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the baby is crying in the stroller | The baby is not crying in the stroller | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | modus tollen | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | The baby is crying in the stroller | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | 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 handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the baby is crying in the stroller, and the baby is not crying in the stroller, therefore a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in charlie's belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, which shows that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home. | If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | modus tollen | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, and detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, which shows that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, which implies that the suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim. | If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, which implies that the suspect did not have 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|>
|
The dog is barking at the mailman, as if the dog is barking at the stranger then the dog is barking at the mailman and the dog is barking at the stranger. | If the dog is barking at the stranger then the dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is barking at the stranger | The dog is barking at the mailman | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the stranger | The dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is not barking at the stranger | The dog is not barking at the mailman | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking at the mailman, as if the dog is barking at the stranger then the dog is barking at the mailman and the dog is barking at the stranger.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which establishes that laura had recently changed her social media passwords. | If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | modus ponen | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which establishes that laura had recently changed her social media passwords.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, so the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, so the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The computer is not on, because if the computer is on then a shattered vase was found in the hallway and a shattered vase was not found in the hallway. | If the computer is on then a shattered vase was found in the hallway | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | The computer is not on | modus tollen | The computer is on | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | The computer is not on | 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: ```The computer is not on, because if the computer is on then a shattered vase was found in the hallway and a shattered vase was not found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, which implies that the cat is purring contentedly on my lap. | If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | modus ponen | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, which implies that the cat is purring contentedly on my lap.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, and a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily, so a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine. | If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | modus tollen | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, and a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily, so a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, hence the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information. | If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | modus ponen | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | 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 john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, 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 a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then the sun is shining brightly, and the sun is not shining brightly, therefore a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard. | If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then the sun is shining brightly | The sun is not shining brightly | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | modus tollen | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | The sun is shining brightly | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | The sun is not shining brightly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then the sun is shining brightly, and the sun is not shining brightly, therefore a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, thus the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals. | If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | modus ponen | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, thus the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a memoir then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and the book is a memoir, which establishes that the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim. | If the book is a memoir then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The book is a memoir | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | modus ponen | The book is a memoir | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The book is not a memoir | 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 book is a memoir then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and the book is a memoir, which establishes that the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking at the dog next door, since if the baby is crawling towards the toy then the dog is barking at the dog next door and the baby is crawling towards the toy. | If the baby is crawling towards the toy then the dog is barking at the dog next door | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The dog is barking at the dog next door | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The dog is barking at the dog next door | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking at the dog next door, since if the baby is crawling towards the toy then the dog is barking at the dog next door and the baby is crawling towards the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, since if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. | If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | modus ponen | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, since if the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, as if a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment and a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment. | If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment | A missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | modus tollen | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence, as if a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment and a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, and the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, hence the sun is not shining brightly in the sky. | If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, and the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, hence the sun is not shining brightly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, which establishes that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment. | If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, which establishes that no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a romance novel then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, so the book is not a romance novel. | If the book is a romance novel then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The book is not a romance novel | modus tollen | The book is a romance novel | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The book is not a romance novel | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a romance novel then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, and no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, so the book is not a romance novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then laura's pet cat is missing, and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, which shows that laura's pet cat is missing. | If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then laura's pet cat is missing | A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door | Laura's pet cat is missing | modus ponen | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | Laura's pet cat is missing | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | Laura's pet cat is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then laura's pet cat is missing, and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, which shows that laura's pet cat is missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, which shows that officer brown discovered a hidden basement. | If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer brown discovered a hidden basement | Detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | modus ponen | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, which shows that officer brown discovered 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|>
|
If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, which establishes that emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder. | If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | modus tollen | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, which establishes that emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, as if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, as if the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene and a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, since if a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house and a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard. | If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | modus ponen | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, since if a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house and a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, and the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, so it can be concluded that richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions. | If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | modus tollen | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions then the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user, and the victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user, so it can be concluded that richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly overhead then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, and the sun is shining brightly overhead, which shows that fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The sun is shining brightly overhead | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | modus ponen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | 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: ```If the sun is shining brightly overhead then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, and the sun is shining brightly overhead, which shows that fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then the book is a collection of short stories, and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, so the book is a collection of short stories. | If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then the book is a collection of short stories | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | The book is a collection of short stories | modus ponen | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | The book is a collection of short stories | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | The book is not a collection of short stories | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then the book is a collection of short stories, and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, so the book is a collection of short stories.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, because if the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail. | If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | modus ponen | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, because if the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, so laura's dog was found locked in a closet. | If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then laura's dog was found locked in a closet | A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | modus ponen | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, so laura's dog was found locked in a closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, because if surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | modus ponen | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | 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: ```The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, because if surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, which shows that the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap. | If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | modus tollen | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring contentedly on my lap then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, which shows that the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with toys then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and the baby is playing with toys, therefore officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene. | If the baby is playing with toys then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The baby is playing with toys | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | modus ponen | The baby is playing with toys | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The baby is not playing with toys | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with toys then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and the baby is playing with toys, therefore officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, which establishes that the cat is sleeping on the couch. | If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the cat is sleeping on the couch | John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The cat is sleeping on the couch | modus ponen | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The cat is sleeping on the couch | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | 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 john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, which establishes that 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|>
|
A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace, because if a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the baby is crawling towards the toy and the baby is not crawling towards the toy. | If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the baby is crawling towards the toy | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | modus tollen | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The baby is crawling towards the toy | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace, because if a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the baby is crawling towards the toy and the baby is not crawling towards the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the neighbors then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, and a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, hence the dog is not barking at the neighbors. | If the dog is barking at the neighbors then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the neighbors | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the neighbors then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, and a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, hence the dog is not barking at the neighbors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, which implies that richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery. | If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | Detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | modus tollen | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, which implies that richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the toy then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and the baby is crawling towards the toy, so laura's car was found with a slashed tire. | If the baby is crawling towards the toy then laura's car was found with a slashed tire | The baby is crawling towards the toy | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the toy | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the toy then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and the baby is crawling towards the toy, so laura's car was found with a slashed tire.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had bruises on his arms then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument, thus john davis did not have bruises on his arms. | If john davis had bruises on his arms then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | modus tollen | John Davis had bruises on his arms | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | 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 john davis had bruises on his arms then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument, thus john davis did not have bruises on his arms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, which shows that no security camera captured the suspect entering the building. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | modus tollen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, which shows that no security camera captured the suspect entering the building.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, which shows that the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees. | If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | modus tollen | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, and the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, which shows that the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is purring, as if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the cat is purring and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car. | If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the cat is purring | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The cat is purring | modus ponen | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The cat is purring | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The cat is not purring | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is purring, as if a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the cat is purring and a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, since if the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects and detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects. | If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | modus tollen | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, since if the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects and detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, therefore laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions. | If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | modus tollen | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | 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 laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, therefore laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, since if officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and no bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then a bloody footprint was found in the living room | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | modus tollen | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, since if officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and no bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, which establishes that officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet. | If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | modus tollen | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | 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 officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, which establishes that officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with a toy car then the book is a memoir, and the baby is playing with a toy car, which shows that the book is a memoir. | If the baby is playing with a toy car then the book is a memoir | The baby is playing with a toy car | The book is a memoir | modus ponen | The baby is playing with a toy car | The book is a memoir | The baby is not playing with a toy car | The book is not a memoir | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with a toy car then the book is a memoir, and the baby is playing with a toy car, which shows that the book is a memoir.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a documentary then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and the movie is a documentary, therefore a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster. | If the movie is a documentary then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The movie is a documentary | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | modus ponen | The movie is a documentary | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The movie is not a documentary | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a documentary then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and the movie is a documentary, therefore a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining through the window then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, and footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene, which shows that the sun is not shining through the window. | If the sun is shining through the window then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene | Footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene | The sun is not shining through the window | modus tollen | The sun is shining through the window | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | The sun is not shining through the window | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining through the window then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, and footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene, which shows that the sun is not shining through the window.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, so it can be concluded that a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder. | If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the sun is setting slowly | The sun is not setting slowly | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | modus tollen | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The sun is setting slowly | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | 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 a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, so it can be concluded that a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The weather is cloudy and rainy, as if the sun is shining then the weather is cloudy and rainy and the sun is shining. | If the sun is shining then the weather is cloudy and rainy | The sun is shining | The weather is cloudy and rainy | modus ponen | The sun is shining | The weather is cloudy and rainy | The sun is not shining | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The weather is cloudy and rainy, as if the sun is shining then the weather is cloudy and rainy and the sun is shining.```<|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, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, which shows that a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene. | If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | modus ponen | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | 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 the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, which shows that 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 richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then cats are mammals, and cats are not mammals, hence richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account. | If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then cats are mammals | Cats are not mammals | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | modus tollen | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | Cats are mammals | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | Cats are not mammals | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then cats are mammals, and cats are not mammals, hence richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account.```<|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 eating food then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted, which implies that the cat is not eating food. | If the cat is eating food then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | The cat is not eating food | modus tollen | The cat is eating food | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The cat is not eating food | 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 cat is eating food then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, and the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted, which implies that the cat is not eating food.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, hence the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization. | If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then john davis had a history of stalking laura | John davis did not have a history of stalking laura | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | modus tollen | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, hence the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis, because if laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then the cat is eating food and the cat is not eating food. | If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then the cat is eating food | The cat is not eating food | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | modus tollen | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | The cat is eating food | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | The cat is not eating food | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis, because if laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then the cat is eating food and the cat is not eating food.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the stranger then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, and the dog is barking at the stranger, so a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect. | If the dog is barking at the stranger then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | The dog is barking at the stranger | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the stranger | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | The dog is not barking at the stranger | 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 the dog is barking at the stranger then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, and the dog is barking at the stranger, so a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then sally is older than john, and sally is not older than john, which shows that a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene. | If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then sally is older than john | Sally is not older than john | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | modus tollen | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | Sally is older than John | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | Sally is not older than John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then sally is older than john, and sally is not older than john, which shows that a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, which implies that no witness heard screams coming from laura's house. | If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | No witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | modus tollen | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, which implies that no witness heard screams coming from laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the sun is shining, and the sun is not shining, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the sun is shining | The sun is not shining | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | modus tollen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | The sun is shining | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | The sun is not shining | 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 identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then the sun is shining, and the sun is not shining, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, which shows that detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park. | If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | modus ponen | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, which shows that detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the cat is not sleeping on the couch, which establishes that john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past. | If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the cat is sleeping on the couch | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | modus tollen | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | The cat is sleeping on the couch | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | 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 john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then the cat is sleeping on the couch, and the cat is not sleeping on the couch, which establishes that john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past.```<|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 a flickering light inside laura's house then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, so it can be concluded that the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home. | If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | modus ponen | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, so it can be concluded that the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, because if a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data and a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard. | If a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | modus ponen | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, because if a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data and a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, since if the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home. | If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | modus ponen | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing, since if the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is purring loudly, since if the baby is crying in the stroller then the cat is purring loudly and the baby is crying in the stroller. | If the baby is crying in the stroller then the cat is purring loudly | The baby is crying in the stroller | The cat is purring loudly | modus ponen | The baby is crying in the stroller | The cat is purring loudly | The baby is not crying in the stroller | The cat is not purring loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is purring loudly, since if the baby is crying in the stroller then the cat is purring loudly and 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 a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, which establishes that the sun is shining brightly overhead. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the sun is shining brightly overhead | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The sun is shining brightly overhead | modus ponen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The sun is shining brightly overhead | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, which establishes that the sun is shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is shedding leaves then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats, so the tree is not shedding leaves. | If the tree is shedding leaves then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | The tree is not shedding leaves | modus tollen | The tree is shedding leaves | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The tree is not shedding leaves | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | 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 laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats, so the tree is not shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness heard screams coming from laura's house, as if laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house and laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis. | If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house | Laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | modus ponen | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness heard screams coming from laura's house, as if laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house and 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 john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, which establishes that a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene. | If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | John davis had a restraining order violation in the past | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | modus ponen | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, which establishes that 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 the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, thus john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe. | If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen, thus 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|>
|
The book is on the nightstand, because if a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the book is on the nightstand and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office. | If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the book is on the nightstand | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The book is on the nightstand | modus ponen | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The book is on the nightstand | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The book is not on the nightstand | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is on the nightstand, because if a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the book is on the nightstand and a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking at the door, since if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the dog is barking at the door and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard. | If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the dog is barking at the door | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The dog is barking at the door | modus ponen | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The dog is barking at the door | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The dog is not barking at the door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking at the door, since if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then the dog is barking at the door and a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, which establishes that john davis had a history of stalking laura. | If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then john davis had a history of stalking laura | Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | modus ponen | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, which establishes that john davis had a history of stalking laura.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, so a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard. | If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | modus ponen | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, so a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, so it can be concluded that the stolen van was registered in a fake name. | If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | modus ponen | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, so it can be concluded that the stolen van was registered in a fake name.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and john davis did not have a history of stalking other women, which shows that the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses. | If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then john davis had a history of stalking other women | John davis did not have a history of stalking other women | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | modus tollen | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and john davis did not have a history of stalking other women, which shows that the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, which implies that richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles. | If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | modus tollen | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, which implies that richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles.```<|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 did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, as if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the movie is a horror film and the movie is not a horror film. | If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the movie is a horror film | The movie is not a horror film | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | modus tollen | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | The movie is a horror film | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | 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: ```A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, as if a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then the movie is a horror film and the movie is not a horror film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's pet cat is missing then the movie is a family film, and laura's pet cat is missing, hence the movie is a family film. | If laura's pet cat is missing then the movie is a family film | Laura's pet cat is missing | The movie is a family film | modus ponen | Laura's pet cat is missing | The movie is a family film | Laura's pet cat is not missing | The movie is not a family film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's pet cat is missing then the movie is a family film, and laura's pet cat is missing, hence the movie is a family film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, which shows that john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape. | If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | Sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | modus tollen | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, and sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily, which shows that john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the baby is playing with toys, and the baby is not playing with toys, so it can be concluded that a neighbor did not hear a gunshot. | If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the baby is playing with toys | The baby is not playing with toys | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | modus tollen | A neighbor heard a gunshot | The baby is playing with toys | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | 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 a neighbor heard a gunshot then the baby is playing with toys, and the baby is not playing with toys, so it can be concluded that a neighbor did not hear a gunshot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, so a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene. | If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | modus ponen | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | A witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | No witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene, and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, so a witness saw a masked man fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, as if the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary. | If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | modus ponen | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, as if the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, because if sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data. | If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | modus tollen | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, because if sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, which shows that the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago. | If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then the cat is grooming itself | The cat is not grooming itself | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | modus tollen | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The cat is grooming itself | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | The cat is not grooming itself | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, which shows that the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago.```<|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 the movie is a drama, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, which implies that the movie is a drama. | If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the movie is a drama | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | The movie is a drama | modus ponen | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | The movie is a drama | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | 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 a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the movie is a drama, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, 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|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.