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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The car is not a hybrid, as if the car is a hybrid then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary and the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary. | If the car is a hybrid then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The car is not a hybrid | modus tollen | The car is a hybrid | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | The car is not a hybrid | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The car is not a hybrid, as if the car is a hybrid then the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary and the victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, hence the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest. | If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | John davis had recently purchased a firearm | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | modus ponen | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, hence the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cold and rainy then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, hence the weather is not cold and rainy. | If the weather is cold and rainy then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | Detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | The weather is not cold and rainy | modus tollen | The weather is cold and rainy | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The weather is not cold and rainy | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cold and rainy then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, hence the weather is not cold and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is eating food then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and the cat is eating food, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery. | If the cat is eating food then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The cat is eating food | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | modus ponen | The cat is eating food | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The cat is not eating food | 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 cat is eating food then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and the cat is eating food, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's dog was found locked in a closet, as if the book is a bestseller then laura's dog was found locked in a closet and the book is a bestseller. | If the book is a bestseller then laura's dog was found locked in a closet | The book is a bestseller | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | modus ponen | The book is a bestseller | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | The book is not a bestseller | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's dog was found locked in a closet, as if the book is a bestseller then laura's dog was found locked in a closet and the book is a bestseller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the stroller then the book is a mystery novel, and the book is not a mystery novel, which shows that the baby is not crying in the stroller. | If the baby is crying in the stroller then the book is a mystery novel | The book is not a mystery novel | The baby is not crying in the stroller | modus tollen | The baby is crying in the stroller | The book is a mystery novel | The baby is not crying in the stroller | The book is not a mystery novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying in the stroller then the book is a mystery novel, and the book is not a mystery novel, which shows that the baby is not crying in the stroller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the car is parked on the street, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, therefore the car is parked on the street. | If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the car is parked on the street | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The car is parked on the street | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The car is parked on the street | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | The car is not parked on the street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of violence against the victim then the car is parked on the street, and the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, therefore the car is parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, which implies that a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction. | If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | 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 the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, which implies that a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the book is on the nightstand, and the book is not on the nightstand, thus the victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail. | If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the book is on the nightstand | The book is not on the nightstand | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | modus tollen | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The book is on the nightstand | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | 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 the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the book is on the nightstand, and the book is not on the nightstand, thus the victim had not 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 victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then laura's garage door was left open, and laura's garage door was not left open, which establishes that the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard. | If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then laura's garage door was left open | Laura's garage door was not left open | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | modus tollen | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | Laura's garage door was left open | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | Laura's garage door was not left open | 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 pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then laura's garage door was left open, and laura's garage door was not left open, which establishes that the victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, so a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house. | If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house | John davis had recently purchased a firearm | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | modus ponen | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | A neighbor reported seeing John loitering around Laura's house | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | A neighbor did not report seeing John loitering around 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 john davis had recently purchased a firearm then a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around laura's house, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, so a neighbor reported seeing john loitering around 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 emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the car is parked on the street, and the car is not parked on the street, so emily had not recently taken a self-defense course. | If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the car is parked on the street | The car is not parked on the street | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | modus tollen | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The car is parked on the street | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | The car is not parked on the street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the car is parked on the street, and the car is not parked on the street, so emily had not recently taken a self-defense course.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the stroller then the cat is sleeping soundly, and the cat is not sleeping soundly, which implies that the baby is not crying in the stroller. | If the baby is crying in the stroller then the cat is sleeping soundly | The cat is not sleeping soundly | The baby is not crying in the stroller | modus tollen | The baby is crying in the stroller | The cat is sleeping soundly | The baby is not crying in the stroller | The cat is not sleeping soundly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying in the stroller then the cat is sleeping soundly, and the cat is not sleeping soundly, which implies that the baby is not crying in the stroller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, which establishes that a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house. | If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | modus ponen | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near 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 sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, which establishes that a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near 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|>
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman, as if the dog is barking at the mailman then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees and the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | The dog is not barking at the mailman | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mailman | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The dog is not barking at the mailman | 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 dog is not barking at the mailman, as if the dog is barking at the mailman then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees and the store owner, richard anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping on the couch then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, and the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation, therefore the cat is not sleeping on the couch. | If the cat is sleeping on the couch then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping on the couch | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | 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 cat is sleeping on the couch then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, and the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation, therefore the cat is not sleeping on the couch.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then the book is on the bestseller list, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, thus the book is on the bestseller list. | If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then the book is on the bestseller list | A witness heard screams coming from laura's house | The book is on the bestseller list | modus ponen | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | The book is on the bestseller list | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | The book is not on the bestseller list | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then the book is on the bestseller list, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, thus the book is on the bestseller list.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, therefore officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet. | If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | modus ponen | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder, therefore officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, as if a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house and no witness heard screams coming from laura's house. | If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house | No witness heard screams coming from laura's house | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | modus tollen | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, as if a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house and no witness heard screams coming from laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, as if footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store. | If footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | modus ponen | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, as if footprints from muddy boots were found in the store then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack and footprints from muddy boots were found in the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, so no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard. | If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | modus tollen | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, so no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, hence a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment. | If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | modus tollen | A missing security camera was found hidden in Emily's apartment | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | A missing security camera was not found hidden in Emily's apartment | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a missing security camera was found hidden in emily's apartment then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, and a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, hence a missing security camera was not found hidden in emily's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, since if fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop. | If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | modus ponen | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | 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 alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, since if fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, which shows that a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene. | If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | modus ponen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | 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 murder weapon was a baseball bat then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, which shows that 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 water is h2o then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, and the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement, so water is not h2o. | If water is h2o then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | Water is not H2O | modus tollen | Water is H2O | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Water is not H2O | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If water is h2o then the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement, and the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement, so water is not h2o.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, which implies that the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder. | If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | Footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | modus ponen | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, which implies that the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's name is john davis then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, and the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery, so the suspect's name is not john davis. | If the suspect's name is john davis then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | The suspect's name is not John Davis | modus tollen | The suspect's name is John Davis | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | The suspect's name is not John Davis | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's name is john davis then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, and the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery, so the suspect's name is not john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the door then the book is a bestseller, and the baby is crawling towards the door, therefore the book is a bestseller. | If the baby is crawling towards the door then the book is a bestseller | The baby is crawling towards the door | The book is a bestseller | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the door | The book is a bestseller | The baby is not crawling towards the door | The book is not a bestseller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the door then the book is a bestseller, and the baby is crawling towards the door, therefore the book is a bestseller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, because if the dog is barking at the mailman then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man and the dog is barking at the mailman. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | The dog is barking at the mailman | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the mailman | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | The dog is not barking at the mailman | 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: ```A homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, because if the dog is barking at the mailman then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man and the dog is barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, and the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, therefore the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk. | If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | modus ponen | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, and the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, therefore the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The apple is red, since if the movie is exciting then the apple is red and the movie is exciting. | If the movie is exciting then the apple is red | The movie is exciting | The apple is red | modus ponen | The movie is exciting | The apple is red | The movie is not exciting | The apple is not red | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The apple is red, since if the movie is exciting then the apple is red and the movie is exciting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, because if a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | modus tollen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, because if a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the suspect's fingerprints were found on a glass in the victim's kitchen and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, as if the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office and no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office. | If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | modus tollen | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, as if the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office and no hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, therefore the baby is crawling towards the toy. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the baby is crawling towards the toy | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The baby is crawling towards the toy | modus ponen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The baby is crawling towards the toy | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, therefore the baby is crawling towards the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, thus 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 mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the 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 mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's hair at the crime scene | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's hair at the crime scene then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, thus 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 the movie is a comedy-drama then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, therefore the movie is not a comedy-drama. | If the movie is a comedy-drama then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | The movie is not a comedy-drama | modus tollen | The movie is a comedy-drama | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The movie is not a comedy-drama | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | 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 laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, and laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop, therefore 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 a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, and the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery, which shows that a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar. | If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar | modus tollen | A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, and the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery, which shows that a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the weather is mild and pleasant, thus the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon. | If the weather is mild and pleasant then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The weather is mild and pleasant | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | modus ponen | The weather is mild and pleasant | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The weather is not mild and pleasant | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is mild and pleasant then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the weather is mild and pleasant, thus the suspect had 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|>
|
No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, since if a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then the baby is laughing at the toy and the baby is not laughing at the toy. | If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then the baby is laughing at the toy | The baby is not laughing at the toy | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | modus tollen | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | The baby is laughing at the toy | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | 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: ```No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, since if a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then the baby is laughing at the toy and the baby is not 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|>
|
If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, which shows that john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit. | If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus ponen | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, which shows that john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, so the cat is not purring. | If the cat is purring then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | The cat is not purring | modus tollen | The cat is purring | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | The cat is not purring | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, so the cat is not purring.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a hybrid then the movie is a thriller, and the car is a hybrid, therefore the movie is a thriller. | If the car is a hybrid then the movie is a thriller | The car is a hybrid | The movie is a thriller | modus ponen | The car is a hybrid | The movie is a thriller | The car is not a hybrid | The movie is not a thriller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a hybrid then the movie is a thriller, and the car is a hybrid, therefore the movie is a thriller.```<|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 stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which establishes that a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror. | If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | modus ponen | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, which establishes that a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.```<|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 showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, since if officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene. | If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | modus ponen | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, since if officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime and officer smith found a broken window 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 fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, which establishes that no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop. | If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home | 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 map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, which establishes that no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, since if a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster. | If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | modus tollen | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | 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: ```A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, since if a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car 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|>
|
The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, because if a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings. | If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | modus ponen | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, because if a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the nightstand 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 on the nightstand. | If the book is on the nightstand 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 on the nightstand | modus tollen | The book is on the nightstand | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | The book is not on the nightstand | 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 on the nightstand 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 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|>
|
Paris is not in france, as if paris is in france then laura had installed a home security system and laura had not installed a home security system. | If paris is in france then laura had installed a home security system | Laura had not installed a home security system | Paris is not in France | modus tollen | Paris is in France | Laura had installed a home security system | Paris is not in France | Laura had not installed a home security system | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Paris is not in france, as if paris is in france then laura had installed a home security system and 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|>
|
If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, thus laura's personal files were deleted from her computer. | If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | modus ponen | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | 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 a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, thus 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|>
|
The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, since if the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause. | If the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus ponen | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, since if the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen and the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause.```<|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 laura's pet cat is missing, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, so laura's pet cat is missing. | If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then laura's pet cat is missing | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | Laura's pet cat is missing | modus ponen | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | Laura's pet cat is missing | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | Laura's pet cat is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then laura's pet cat is missing, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, so laura's pet cat is missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, so the dog is not barking at the mailman. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | The dog is not barking at the mailman | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mailman | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | The dog is not barking at the mailman | 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 dog is barking at the mailman then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, so the dog is not barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, therefore a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby. | If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | modus ponen | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | 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 detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects, therefore a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not barking at the dog next door, because if the dog is barking at the dog next door then the book is a biography and the book is not a biography. | If the dog is barking at the dog next door then the book is a biography | The book is not a biography | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the dog next door | The book is a biography | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | The book is not a biography | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is not barking at the dog next door, because if the dog is barking at the dog next door then the book is a biography and the book is not a biography.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the computer is on, and laura's phone records show calls to 911, so it can be concluded that the computer is on. | If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the computer is on | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | The computer is on | modus ponen | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | The computer is on | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | The computer is not on | 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 phone records show calls to 911 then the computer is on, and laura's phone records show calls to 911, so it can be concluded that the computer is on.```<|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 car keys were missing from their apartment then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, so it can be concluded that a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction. | If the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | modus ponen | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | 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 the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, so it can be concluded that a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, thus no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the sun is setting slowly | The sun is not setting slowly | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus tollen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The sun is setting slowly | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The sun is not setting slowly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the sun is setting slowly, and the sun is not setting slowly, thus 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|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and the book is written by a famous author, thus a security camera captured the suspect entering the building. | If the book is written by a famous author then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The book is written by a famous author | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | modus ponen | The book is written by a famous author | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The book is not written by a famous author | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | 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 written by a famous author then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and the book is written by a famous author, thus a security camera captured the suspect entering the building.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is a documentary, as if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the movie is a documentary and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect. | If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the movie is a documentary | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The movie is a documentary | modus ponen | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The movie is a documentary | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | 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 victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then the movie is a documentary and the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the cat then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, and the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information, which implies that the baby is not crawling towards the cat. | If the baby is crawling towards the cat then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the cat | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the cat then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, and the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information, which implies that the 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 a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, so it can be concluded that a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | modus ponen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim'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 a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, so it can be concluded that a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a gas leak was detected in the basement then sally is older than john, and sally is not older than john, so it can be concluded that a gas leak was not detected in the basement. | If a gas leak was detected in the basement then sally is older than john | Sally is not older than john | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | modus tollen | A gas leak was detected in the basement | Sally is older than John | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | Sally is not older than John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a gas leak was detected in the basement then sally is older than john, and sally is not older than john, so it can be concluded that a gas leak was not detected in the basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, so it can be concluded that a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox. | If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox | A gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | modus ponen | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, so it can be concluded that a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox.```<|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 jewelry box was emptied, because if the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then laura's jewelry box was emptied and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen. | If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then laura's jewelry box was emptied | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's jewelry box was emptied, because if the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then laura's jewelry box was emptied and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The phone is ringing, as if a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the phone is ringing and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door. | If a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the phone is ringing | A bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door | The phone is ringing | modus ponen | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | The phone is ringing | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | The phone is not ringing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The phone is ringing, as if a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door then the phone is ringing and a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's name is john davis, as if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the suspect's name is john davis and the sun is setting slowly in the sky. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the suspect's name is john davis | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The suspect's name is John Davis | modus ponen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The suspect's name is John Davis | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | The suspect's name is not John Davis | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's name is john davis, as if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the suspect's name is john davis and the sun is setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then the baby is sleeping, and the baby is not sleeping, which establishes that the suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder. | If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then the baby is sleeping | The baby is not sleeping | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | modus tollen | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The baby is sleeping | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The baby is not sleeping | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder then the baby is sleeping, and the baby is not sleeping, which establishes that the suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the door then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, so the dog is not barking at the door. | If the dog is barking at the door then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The dog is not barking at the door | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the door | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The dog is not barking at the door | 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 dog is barking at the door then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, so the dog is not barking at the door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, because if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then laura's jewelry box was emptied and laura's jewelry box was not emptied. | If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then laura's jewelry box was emptied | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | 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 | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | 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 jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive, because if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then laura's jewelry box was emptied and laura's jewelry box was not emptied.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a thriller then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, and officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store, so the movie is not a thriller. | If the movie is a thriller then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | Officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | The movie is not a thriller | modus tollen | The movie is a thriller | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | The movie is not a thriller | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a thriller then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, and officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store, so the movie is not a thriller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, hence surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river. | If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, hence surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask disposing of evidence in a river.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is not shining, because if the sun is shining then the book is a memoir and the book is not a memoir. | If the sun is shining then the book is a memoir | The book is not a memoir | The sun is not shining | modus tollen | The sun is shining | The book is a memoir | The sun is not shining | The book is not a memoir | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not shining, because if the sun is shining then the book is a memoir and the book is not a memoir.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then laura's wedding ring is missing, and laura's wedding ring is not missing, hence the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect. | If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then laura's wedding ring is missing | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | modus tollen | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | Laura's wedding ring is missing | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then laura's wedding ring is missing, and laura's wedding ring is not missing, hence the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, because if the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet and the stolen van was registered in a fake name. | If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | modus ponen | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet, because if the stolen van was registered in a fake name then officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet and the stolen van was registered in a fake name.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, therefore a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair. | If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | No bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | modus tollen | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | 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 a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and no bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, therefore a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the stranger then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, and no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking at the stranger. | If the dog is barking at the stranger then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | The dog is not barking at the stranger | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the stranger | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | The dog is not barking at the stranger | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the stranger then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, and no neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, so it can be concluded that the dog is not 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 suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then the movie is exciting, and the movie is not exciting, 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 the movie is exciting | The movie is not exciting | 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 | The movie is exciting | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The movie is not exciting | 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 the movie is exciting, and the movie is not exciting, 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 tree is tall 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, which establishes that the tree is not tall. | If the tree is tall 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 tree is not tall | modus tollen | The tree is tall | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | The tree is not tall | 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 tree is tall 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, which establishes that 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 store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker. | If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | modus tollen | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|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 office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, therefore the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact. | If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is not barking at the mailman | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | modus tollen | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | The dog is barking at the mailman | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | The dog is not barking at the mailman | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, therefore the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, and no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, thus a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car. | If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | modus tollen | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, and no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, thus a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect'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|>
|
A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, because if a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the book is written by a famous author and the book is not written by a famous author. | If a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the book is written by a famous author | The book is not written by a famous author | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | modus tollen | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | The book is written by a famous author | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | 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: ```A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, because if a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat then the book is written by a famous author and the book is not written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then the movie is exciting, and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, so it can be concluded that the movie is exciting. | If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then the movie is exciting | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The movie is exciting | modus ponen | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The movie is exciting | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The movie is not exciting | 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 the movie is exciting, and the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, so it can be concluded that the movie is exciting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is not barking at the mail truck, hence laura had not recently changed her social media passwords. | If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the dog is barking at the mail truck | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | modus tollen | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The dog is barking at the mail truck | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | The dog is not barking at the mail truck | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had recently changed her social media passwords then the dog is barking at the mail truck, and the dog is not barking at the mail truck, hence laura had not recently changed her social media passwords.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, because if john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask. | If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | modus tollen | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, because if john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.```<|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 hearing a loud argument, because if a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the movie is exciting and the movie is not exciting. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the movie is exciting | The movie is not exciting | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | The movie is exciting | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | The movie is not exciting | 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 hearing a loud argument, because if a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument then the movie is exciting and the movie is not exciting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and the victim's name is sarah mitchell, which shows that detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park. | If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The victim's name is sarah mitchell | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | modus ponen | The victim's name is Sarah Mitchell | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The victim's name is not Sarah Mitchell | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's name is sarah mitchell then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and the victim's name is sarah mitchell, which shows that detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a gas leak was detected in the basement then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the weather is not cloudy and rainy, which shows that a gas leak was not detected in the basement. | If a gas leak was detected in the basement then the weather is cloudy and rainy | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | modus tollen | A gas leak was detected in the basement | The weather is cloudy and rainy | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a gas leak was detected in the basement then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the weather is not cloudy and rainy, which shows that a gas leak was not detected in the basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which shows that a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim. | If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | Emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | modus ponen | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, which shows that a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is shining brightly, since if a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the sun is shining brightly and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby. | If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the sun is shining brightly | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The sun is shining brightly | modus ponen | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The sun is shining brightly | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The sun is not shining brightly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is shining brightly, since if a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the sun is shining brightly and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, therefore detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard. | If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | modus tollen | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, and laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway, therefore detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, which establishes that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home. | If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the baby is teething on a toy | The baby is not teething on a toy | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | modus tollen | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | The baby is teething on a toy | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | The baby is not teething on a toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, which establishes that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, because if a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees and a broken chair was found in the kitchen. | If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | modus ponen | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | 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, because if a broken chair was found in the kitchen then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees and a broken chair was found in the kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the eiffel tower is in paris then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, which establishes that the eiffel tower is not in paris. | If the eiffel tower is in paris then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | modus tollen | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the eiffel tower is in paris then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, which establishes that the eiffel tower is not in paris.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, hence the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions. | If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | modus tollen | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, and surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, hence the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a family film, as if the movie is a family film then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store and a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store. | If the movie is a family film then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The movie is not a family film | modus tollen | The movie is a family film | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The movie is not a family film | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near 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: ```The movie is not a family film, as if the movie is a family film then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store and a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, thus sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house. | If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | No cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | modus tollen | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | 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 sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, and no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen, thus sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend'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 john davis had a secret storage unit 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, so john davis did not have a secret storage unit. | If john davis had a secret storage unit 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 | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | modus tollen | John Davis had a secret storage unit | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | 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 john davis had a secret storage unit 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, so john davis did not have a secret storage unit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, which implies that a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar | modus ponen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar, and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, which implies that a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.