Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.
stringlengths 74
421
| If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
stringlengths 36
192
| Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 788
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street
stringclasses 788
values | modus ponen
stringclasses 2
values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1
stringclasses 394
values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street
stringclasses 394
values | True
bool 1
class | text
stringlengths 453
800
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, which shows that the murder weapon was not a baseball bat. | If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | modus tollen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, which shows that the murder weapon was not a baseball bat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is exciting then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and the movie is exciting, which shows that a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone. | If the movie is exciting then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The movie is exciting | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | modus ponen | The movie is exciting | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The movie is not exciting | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | 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 exciting then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and the movie is exciting, which shows that a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, which shows that a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene. | If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | modus ponen | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, which shows that a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage. | If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | modus tollen | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, hence the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, which implies that a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow. | If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow | John davis had a history of violating restraining orders | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | A note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | No note threatening Sarah was found under her pillow | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow, and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, which implies that a note threatening sarah was found under her pillow.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, therefore a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder. | If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | modus ponen | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, therefore a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a comedy-drama then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, so the movie is not a comedy-drama. | If the movie is a comedy-drama then the sun is setting slowly | The sun is not setting slowly | The movie is not a comedy-drama | modus tollen | The movie is a comedy-drama | The sun is setting slowly | The movie is not a comedy-drama | The sun is not setting slowly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a comedy-drama then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, so the movie is not a comedy-drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's wedding ring is missing then the book is on the nightstand, and laura's wedding ring is missing, which establishes that the book is on the nightstand. | If laura's wedding ring is missing then the book is on the nightstand | Laura's wedding ring is missing | The book is on the nightstand | modus ponen | Laura's wedding ring is missing | The book is on the nightstand | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | The book is not on the nightstand | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's wedding ring is missing then the book is on the nightstand, and laura's wedding ring is missing, which establishes that the book is on the nightstand.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the football is round, and the football is not round, so the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon. | If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the football is round | The football is not round | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The football is round | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The football is not round | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then the football is round, and the football is not round, so the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, and the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, thus the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime. | If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | modus tollen | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, and the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, thus the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the baby is teething, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which implies that the baby is teething. | If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the baby is teething | Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The baby is teething | modus ponen | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The baby is teething | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The baby is not teething | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the baby is teething, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which implies that the baby is teething.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | modus ponen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day 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|>
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, because if laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer. | If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | modus ponen | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | 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: ```Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, because if laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store and laura's personal files were deleted from her computer.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, because if sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder. | If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | modus ponen | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, because if sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, hence the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail. | If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | modus ponen | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, hence 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 the movie is a documentary then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, and the movie is a documentary, therefore a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet. | If the movie is a documentary then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The movie is a documentary | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | modus ponen | The movie is a documentary | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The movie is not a documentary | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | 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 handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, and the movie is a documentary, therefore a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, therefore a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession. | If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | modus ponen | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, therefore a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, since if the sun is shining through the window then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees and the sun is shining through the window. | If the sun is shining through the window then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The sun is shining through the window | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | modus ponen | The sun is shining through the window | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The sun is not shining through the window | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, since if the sun is shining through the window then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees and the sun is 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 officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, so laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats. | If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | Officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | modus ponen | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | 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 officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, and officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, so laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the cat then the baby is crying, and the baby is not crying, so it can be concluded that the baby is not crawling towards the cat. | If the baby is crawling towards the cat then the baby is crying | The baby is not crying | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the cat | The baby is crying | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | The baby is not crying | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the cat then the baby is crying, and the baby is not crying, so it can be concluded that the baby is not crawling towards the cat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, thus laura's car was not found with a slashed tire. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | modus tollen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | 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: ```If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and a witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, thus laura's car was not 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|>
|
No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, as if fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster. | If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | modus tollen | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | 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: ```No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, as if fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster and no 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 weather is cloudy and rainy then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and the weather is cloudy and rainy, hence a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder. | If the weather is cloudy and rainy then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The weather is cloudy and rainy | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | modus ponen | The weather is cloudy and rainy | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cloudy and rainy then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, and the weather is cloudy and rainy, hence a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the baby is playing with blocks, and the baby is not playing with blocks, which establishes that the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years. | If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the baby is playing with blocks | The baby is not playing with blocks | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | modus tollen | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The baby is playing with blocks | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | The baby is not playing with blocks | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the baby is playing with blocks, and the baby is not playing with blocks, which establishes that the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.```<|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 drama then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, which implies that the movie is not a drama. | If the movie is a drama then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | The movie is not a drama | modus tollen | The movie is a drama | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | The movie is not a drama | 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 the movie is a drama then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, which implies that the movie is not a drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly overhead then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which shows that the sun is not shining brightly overhead. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead then the book is written by a famous author | The book is not written by a famous author | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | The book is written by a famous author | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | The book is not written by a famous author | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly overhead then the book is written by a famous author, and the book is not written by a famous author, which shows that the sun is not shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, which shows that no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom. | If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | modus tollen | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | 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 hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, which shows that no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is tall then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, and the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities, therefore the tree is not tall. | If the tree is tall then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | The tree is not tall | modus tollen | The tree is tall | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | The tree is not tall | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is tall then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, and the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities, therefore the tree is not tall.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the nightstand then the baby is laughing at the toy, and the book is on the nightstand, which establishes that the baby is laughing at the toy. | If the book is on the nightstand then the baby is laughing at the toy | The book is on the nightstand | The baby is laughing at the toy | modus ponen | The book is on the nightstand | The baby is laughing at the toy | The book is not on the nightstand | The baby is not laughing at the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the nightstand then the baby is laughing at the toy, and the book is on the nightstand, which establishes that the baby is laughing at 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|>
|
The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, since if the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property and a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property. | If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | modus tollen | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime, since if the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property and a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's name is not john davis, because if the suspect's name is john davis then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene. | If the suspect's name is john davis then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | The suspect's name is not John Davis | modus tollen | The suspect's name is John Davis | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | The suspect's name is not John Davis | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's name is not john davis, because if the suspect's name is john davis then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a mystery novel then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, and a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, so it can be concluded that the book is not a mystery novel. | If the book is a mystery novel then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | The book is not a mystery novel | modus tollen | The book is a mystery novel | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | The book is not a mystery novel | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a mystery novel then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, and a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, so it can be concluded that the book is not a mystery 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 laura's passport is missing then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, and officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, which shows that laura's passport is not missing. | If laura's passport is missing then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | Laura's passport is not missing | modus tollen | Laura's passport is missing | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Laura's passport is not missing | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's passport is missing then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, and officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, which shows that laura's passport is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, which establishes that a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder. | If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | modus ponen | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, which establishes that a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, because if john davis had recently purchased a firearm then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard and john davis had recently purchased a firearm. | If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | John davis had recently purchased a firearm | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | modus ponen | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, because if john davis had recently purchased a firearm then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard and john davis had recently purchased a firearm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, therefore laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | modus tollen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, therefore laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, and a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, therefore the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data. | If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | modus ponen | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house then the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, and a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, therefore the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of stalking laura then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, hence john davis did not have a history of stalking laura. | If john davis had a history of stalking laura then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of stalking laura then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, hence john davis did not have 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 the baby is playing with blocks then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and the baby is playing with blocks, which shows that laura's personal files were deleted from her computer. | If the baby is playing with blocks then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | The baby is playing with blocks | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | modus ponen | The baby is playing with blocks | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | The baby is not playing with blocks | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with blocks then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and the baby is playing with blocks, which shows that laura's personal files were deleted from her computer.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, so it can be concluded that no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus tollen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | 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 a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, so it can be concluded that no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is playing with toys, as if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the baby is playing with toys and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene. | If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the baby is playing with toys | A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | The baby is playing with toys | modus ponen | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | The baby is playing with toys | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | The baby is not playing with toys | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is playing with toys, as if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the baby is playing with toys and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then the movie is a horror film, and the movie is not a horror film, therefore laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker. | If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then the movie is a horror film | The movie is not a horror film | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | modus tollen | Laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker | The movie is a horror film | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker | The movie is not a horror film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's diary contains mentions of an unknown stalker then the movie is a horror film, and the movie is not a horror film, therefore laura's diary does not contain mentions of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had installed a home security system then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, which shows that laura had not installed a home security system. | If laura had installed a home security system then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | Laura had not installed a home security system | modus tollen | Laura had installed a home security system | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Laura had not installed a home security system | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had installed a home security system then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal, which shows that laura had not installed a home security system.```<|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, as if the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors. | If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | modus tollen | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, as if the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, so a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle. | If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | No cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | modus tollen | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, so a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is eating food then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and the cat is eating food, so a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If the cat is eating food then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | The cat is eating food | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus ponen | The cat is eating food | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | The cat is not eating food | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is eating food then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and the cat is eating food, so a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, so it can be concluded that john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone. | If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | modus ponen | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, so it can be concluded that 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 emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, so a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone. | If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | modus ponen | Emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | Emily's neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and emily's neighbor reported hearing a loud argument on the night of the murder, so a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the 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 officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder. | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | modus ponen | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then the bird is singing, and the bird is not singing, thus no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry. | If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then the bird is singing | The bird is not singing | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | modus tollen | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | The bird is singing | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | The bird is not singing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then the bird is singing, and the bird is not singing, thus no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If dogs are not fish then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, thus dogs are fish. | If dogs are not fish then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | Dogs are fish | modus tollen | Dogs are not fish | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | Dogs are fish | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If dogs are not fish then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, thus dogs are fish.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a comedy then the football is round, and the football is not round, hence the movie is not a comedy. | If the movie is a comedy then the football is round | The football is not round | The movie is not a comedy | modus tollen | The movie is a comedy | The football is round | The movie is not a comedy | The football is not round | 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 comedy then the football is round, and the football is not round, hence the movie is not a comedy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, so it can be concluded that no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car. | If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | John davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | modus tollen | A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, so it can be concluded that no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, thus the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon. | If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | A gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, thus the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a drama then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage, which shows that the movie is not a drama. | If the movie is a drama then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | The movie is not a drama | modus tollen | The movie is a drama | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | The movie is not a drama | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | 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 drama then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage, which shows that the movie is not a drama.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the computer is on then cats are mammals, and cats are not mammals, thus the computer is not on. | If the computer is on then cats are mammals | Cats are not mammals | The computer is not on | modus tollen | The computer is on | Cats are mammals | The computer is not on | 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 the computer is on then cats are mammals, and cats are not mammals, thus the computer is not on.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, as if john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders. | If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | John davis had a history of violating restraining orders | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, as if john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store and john davis had a history of violating restraining orders.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, as if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder and sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder. | If a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | Sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | modus tollen | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, as if a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard then sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder and sarah's sister, emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a bloody footprint was found in the living room then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | modus ponen | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | Officer Smith did not find a broken window 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: ```Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, as if a bloody footprint was found in the living room then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene and a bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, and the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, so a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment. | If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | modus ponen | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | 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: ```If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment, and the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, so a missing security camera was 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 a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, thus laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed. | If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | modus ponen | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, thus laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, so a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction. | If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | modus tollen | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, so a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, so it can be concluded that laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed. | If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | modus tollen | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, so it can be concluded that 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 the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, and the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation, therefore the stolen van was not registered in a fake name. | If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | modus tollen | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, and the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation, therefore the stolen van was not 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 john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, thus the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools. | If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | John davis had scratches on his arms and neck | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | modus ponen | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | The suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | The suspect had not recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, thus the suspect had recently purchased a shovel and other digging tools.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, and no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, thus the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive. | If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | modus tollen | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | 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 jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, and no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, thus the victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The car is not a sedan, because if the car is a sedan then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout and emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout. | If the car is a sedan then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The car is not a sedan | modus tollen | The car is a sedan | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The car is not a sedan | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is not a sedan, because if the car is a sedan then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout and emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.```<|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 name is sarah mitchell, since if laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then the victim's name is sarah mitchell and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john. | If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then the victim's name is sarah mitchell | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | modus ponen | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's name is sarah mitchell, since if laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then the victim's name is sarah mitchell and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If it is raining today then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle, which establishes that it is not raining today. | If it is raining today then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | It is not raining today | modus tollen | It is raining today | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | It is not raining today | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If it is raining today then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle, which establishes that it is not raining today.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | modus ponen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, therefore the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals. | If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | 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 other individuals then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, therefore the suspect had no 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 suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, so the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim. | If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, and the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, so the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, which implies that no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car. | If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then emily had recently taken a self-defense course | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | modus tollen | A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car then emily had recently taken a self-defense course, and emily had not recently taken a self-defense course, which implies that no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The weather is hot and humid, because if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the weather is hot and humid and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the weather is hot and humid | A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | The weather is hot and humid | modus ponen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The weather is hot and humid | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The weather is not hot and humid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The weather is hot and humid, because if a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the weather is hot and humid and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, as if emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities and the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities. | If emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | modus tollen | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, as if emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities and the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, hence a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | modus tollen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, hence a forensic expert did not identify 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 officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then laura's house was booby-trapped, and laura's house was not booby-trapped, which establishes that officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene. | If officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then laura's house was booby-trapped | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | modus tollen | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | Laura's house was booby-trapped | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | 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 officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene then laura's house was booby-trapped, and laura's house was not booby-trapped, which establishes that officer jackson did not notice 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 the cat is sleeping in the sun then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and the murder weapon was not a baseball bat, hence the cat is not sleeping in the sun. | If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the murder weapon was a baseball bat | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping in the sun | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping in the sun then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and the murder weapon was not a baseball bat, hence the cat is not sleeping in the sun.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction, so no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park. | If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction | A jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | modus tollen | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction, so no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething on a toy then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and the baby is teething on a toy, thus a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene. | If the baby is teething on a toy then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | The baby is teething on a toy | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | modus ponen | The baby is teething on a toy | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | The baby is not teething on a toy | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething on a toy then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and the baby is teething on a toy, thus a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the weather is mild and pleasant, and the weather is not mild and pleasant, so the stolen van was not registered in a fake name. | If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the weather is mild and pleasant | The weather is not mild and pleasant | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | modus tollen | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The weather is mild and pleasant | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | The weather is not mild and pleasant | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the weather is mild and pleasant, and the weather is not mild and pleasant, so the stolen van was not 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 laura's garage door was left open then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and laura's garage door was left open, thus the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed. | If laura's garage door was left open then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | Laura's garage door was left open | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | modus ponen | Laura's garage door was left open | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | Laura's garage door was not left open | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's garage door was left open then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and laura's garage door was left open, thus the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a history of financial problems, as if laura's phone records show calls to 911 then john davis had a history of financial problems and laura's phone records show calls to 911. | If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then john davis had a history of financial problems | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | John Davis had a history of financial problems | modus ponen | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | John Davis had a history of financial problems | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a history of financial problems, as if laura's phone records show calls to 911 then john davis had a history of financial problems and laura's phone records show calls to 911.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, which shows that the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement. | If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past | John davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | modus tollen | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, which shows that the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the baby is playing with a toy car, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, so the baby is playing with a toy car. | If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the baby is playing with a toy car | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The baby is playing with a toy car | modus ponen | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | The baby is playing with a toy car | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | The baby is not playing with a toy car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then the baby is playing with a toy car, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, so the baby is playing with a toy car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the bestseller list then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and the book is on the bestseller list, which implies that the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery. | If the book is on the bestseller list then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The book is on the bestseller list | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | modus ponen | The book is on the bestseller list | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The book is not on the bestseller list | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the bestseller list then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and the book is on the bestseller list, which implies that the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, because if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the weather is mild and pleasant and the weather is not mild and pleasant. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the weather is mild and pleasant | The weather is not mild and pleasant | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | modus tollen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The weather is mild and pleasant | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | The weather is not mild and pleasant | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon, because if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the weather is mild and pleasant and the weather is not mild and pleasant.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization. | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | modus ponen | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, which establishes that the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, hence the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems. | If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | modus ponen | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The suspect did not have a history of gambling debts and financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, hence the suspect had a history of gambling debts and financial problems.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, because if laura's prescription medications were stolen then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime and laura's prescription medications were stolen. | If laura's prescription medications were stolen then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | modus ponen | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | 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: ```The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, because if laura's prescription medications were stolen then the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime and laura's prescription medications were stolen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the cat is purring contentedly, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, therefore the cat is purring contentedly. | If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the cat is purring contentedly | The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The cat is purring contentedly | modus ponen | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The cat is purring contentedly | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The cat is not purring contentedly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the cat is purring contentedly, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, therefore the cat is purring contentedly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, therefore the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it. | If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | modus ponen | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, therefore the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it.```<|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 a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, which establishes that a bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then a bloody footprint was found in the living room | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus ponen | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, which establishes that a bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, which implies that the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment. | If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | modus ponen | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, which implies that the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, which implies that no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone. | If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the cat is grooming itself | The cat is not grooming itself | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | modus tollen | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | The cat is grooming itself | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | 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 a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, which implies that no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the television then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and the dog is barking at the television, so it can be concluded that a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house. | If the dog is barking at the television then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | The dog is barking at the television | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the television | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The dog is not barking at the television | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the television then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and the dog is barking at the television, so it can be concluded that a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the movie is a science fiction film, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, hence the movie is a science fiction film. | If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the movie is a science fiction film | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The movie is a science fiction film | modus ponen | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The movie is a science fiction film | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | The movie is not a science fiction film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the movie is a science fiction film, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, hence the movie is a science fiction film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is a documentary, as if the dog is barking at the stranger then the movie is a documentary and the dog is barking at the stranger. | If the dog is barking at the stranger then the movie is a documentary | The dog is barking at the stranger | The movie is a documentary | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the stranger | The movie is a documentary | The dog is not barking at the stranger | The movie is not a documentary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is a documentary, as if the dog is barking at the stranger then the movie is a documentary 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's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, therefore john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone. | If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | modus ponen | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, therefore 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 a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, which implies that john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape. | If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | A witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | modus ponen | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry, which implies that john davis was 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|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.