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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, because if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the water is warm and the water is not warm. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the water is warm | The water is not warm | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | modus tollen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The water is warm | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The water is not warm | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder, because if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the water is warm and the water is not warm.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, which establishes that officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store. | If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | modus ponen | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | 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 emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, which establishes that officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which shows that officer brown discovered a hidden basement. | If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer brown discovered a hidden basement | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which shows that officer brown discovered a hidden basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is laughing at the toy then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, and the baby is laughing at the toy, which shows that john davis had a history of psychiatric issues. | If the baby is laughing at the toy then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The baby is laughing at the toy | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | modus ponen | The baby is laughing at the toy | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The baby is not laughing at the toy | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is laughing at the toy then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, and the baby is laughing at the toy, which shows that john davis had a history of psychiatric issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the cat is eating food, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, which implies that the cat is eating food. | If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the cat is eating food | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The cat is eating food | modus ponen | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The cat is eating food | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | The cat is not eating food | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the cat is eating food, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, which implies that the cat is eating food.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, hence a broken window was found in laura's bedroom. | If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom | A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | modus ponen | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, hence a broken window was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, hence the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years. | If the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | modus tollen | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to 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 victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, hence the victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, which establishes that laura's laptop was not found smashed. | If laura's laptop was found smashed then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | modus tollen | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | 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 laptop was found smashed then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause, which establishes that laura's laptop was not found smashed.```<|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 cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then the sky is blue, and the sky is not blue, which implies that the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster. | If the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then the sky is blue | The sky is not blue | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | modus tollen | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The sky is blue | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | The sky is not blue | 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 cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster then the sky is blue, and the sky is not blue, which implies that the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething on a toy then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and the baby is teething on a toy, therefore the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder. | If the baby is teething on a toy then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The baby is teething on a toy | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | modus ponen | The baby is teething on a toy | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The baby is not teething on a toy | 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 the baby is teething on a toy then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and the baby is teething on a toy, therefore 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|>
|
The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, as if john davis had a history of identity theft then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror and john davis had a history of identity theft. | If john davis had a history of identity theft then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | John davis had a history of identity theft | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of identity theft | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, as if john davis had a history of identity theft then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror and john davis had a history of identity theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, because if the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain and the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery. | If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | modus ponen | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, because if the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain and the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then laura's laptop was found smashed, and laura's laptop was not found smashed, therefore no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster. | If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then laura's laptop was found smashed | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | modus tollen | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Laura's laptop was found smashed | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then laura's laptop was found smashed, and laura's laptop was not found smashed, therefore no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, so the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery. | If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | modus tollen | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, and no witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning, so the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A broken window was found in laura's bedroom, since if a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom and a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | modus ponen | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A broken window was found in laura's bedroom, since if a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom and a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, so it can be concluded that the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery. | If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | modus tollen | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and john davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, so it can be concluded that the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then the book is on the nightstand, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, thus the book is on the nightstand. | If a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then the book is on the nightstand | A witness heard screams coming from laura's house | The book is on the nightstand | modus ponen | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | The book is on the nightstand | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | 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 a witness heard screams coming from laura's house then the book is on the nightstand, and a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, thus the book is on the nightstand.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, because if john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene and the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. | If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | modus tollen | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs, because if john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene and the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, hence a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned. | If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | modus tollen | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, hence a homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the cat is eating food, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the cat is eating food. | If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the cat is eating food | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | The cat is eating food | modus ponen | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | The cat is eating food | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | The cat is not eating food | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the cat is eating food, and a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the cat is eating food.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor heard a gunshot then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, so it can be concluded that a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store. | If a neighbor heard a gunshot then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A neighbor heard a gunshot | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | modus ponen | A neighbor heard a gunshot | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | 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: ```If a neighbor heard a gunshot then a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, and a neighbor heard a gunshot, so it can be concluded that a delivery driver reported 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 a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, which establishes that laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident. | If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | A threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | modus ponen | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, which establishes that laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair, because if a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the baby is crying in the car and the baby is not crying in the car. | If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the baby is crying in the car | The baby is not crying in the car | 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 | The baby is crying in the car | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | The baby is not crying in the car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair, because if a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the baby is crying in the car and the baby is not crying in the car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, which implies that officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene. | If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | John davis had a restraining order violation in the past | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | modus ponen | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a restraining order violation in the past then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, which implies that officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, which implies that the baby is drinking from a bottle. | If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the baby is drinking from a bottle | A bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | The baby is drinking from a bottle | modus ponen | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The baby is drinking from a bottle | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, which implies that the baby is drinking from a bottle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, and officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, so emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder. | If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | modus tollen | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, and officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, so emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery 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, therefore surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery. | If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | 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 surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery 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, therefore surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, since if detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions and the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions. | If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | modus tollen | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, since if detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions and the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is crying in the stroller, since if the weather is cold and rainy then the baby is crying in the stroller and the weather is cold and rainy. | If the weather is cold and rainy then the baby is crying in the stroller | The weather is cold and rainy | The baby is crying in the stroller | modus ponen | The weather is cold and rainy | The baby is crying in the stroller | The weather is not cold and rainy | The baby is not crying in the stroller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is crying in the stroller, since if the weather is cold and rainy then the baby is crying in the stroller and the weather is 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 weather is nice then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, and the weather is nice, which shows that a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder. | If the weather is nice then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The weather is nice | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | modus ponen | The weather is nice | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The weather is not nice | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is nice then a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, and the weather is nice, which shows that a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, because if a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily and a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily. | If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | modus tollen | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, because if a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily and a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, because if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily and a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily. | If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | modus tollen | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, because if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily and a trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by emily.```<|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 nice then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and the weather is nice, so the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim. | If the weather is nice then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The weather is nice | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | modus ponen | The weather is nice | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The weather is not nice | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is nice then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and the weather is nice, so the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, 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 the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | 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 | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | 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 the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime, 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 suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, so it can be concluded that sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy. | If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | modus ponen | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, so it can be concluded that sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, hence the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime. | If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | modus ponen | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, hence the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, as if the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect and the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect. | If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, as if the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect and 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|>
|
The water is not warm, because if the water is warm then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions and the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions. | If the water is warm then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | The water is not warm | modus tollen | The water is warm | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The water is not warm | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The water is not warm, because if the water is warm then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions and the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura did not have a life insurance policy, as if laura had a life insurance policy then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past. | If laura had a life insurance policy then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past | John davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | modus tollen | Laura had a life insurance policy | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura did not have a life insurance policy, as if laura had a life insurance policy then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot, since if a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then a neighbor heard a gunshot and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack. | If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then a neighbor heard a gunshot | A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | A neighbor heard a gunshot | modus ponen | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | A neighbor heard a gunshot | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor heard a gunshot, since if a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then a neighbor heard a gunshot and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is eating food then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, and the cat is eating food, thus laura had a history of changing her locks frequently. | If the cat is eating food then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | The cat is eating food | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | modus ponen | The cat is eating food | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | The cat is not eating food | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is eating food then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, and the cat is eating food, thus laura had a history of changing her locks frequently.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, therefore john davis had a history of substance abuse. | If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then john davis had a history of substance abuse | A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | modus ponen | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, therefore john davis had a history of substance abuse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which shows that detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse. | If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | modus ponen | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which shows that detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, so the weather is cloudy and rainy. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the weather is cloudy and rainy | Sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | The weather is cloudy and rainy | modus ponen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | The weather is cloudy and rainy | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | 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 sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, so the weather is cloudy and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the sun is shining brightly, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, which shows that the sun is shining brightly. | If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the sun is shining brightly | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The sun is shining brightly | modus ponen | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The sun is shining brightly | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | The sun is not shining brightly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the sun is shining brightly, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, which shows that the sun is shining brightly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, thus no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | modus tollen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Footprints from muddy boots were found in the store | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store | 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 necklace was found in marcus's apartment then footprints from muddy boots were found in the store, and footprints from muddy boots were not found in the store, thus no stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the suspect had no history of mental health issues, hence the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation. | If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the suspect had a history of mental health issues | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | modus tollen | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the suspect had a history of mental health issues, and the suspect had no history of mental health issues, hence the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which implies that laura had a secret storage room in her house. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then laura had a secret storage room in her house | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | modus ponen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which implies that laura had a secret storage room in her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sally is older than john then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, and laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident, which shows that sally is not older than john. | If sally is older than john then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | Sally is not older than John | modus tollen | Sally is older than John | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | Sally is not older than John | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sally is older than john then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, and laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident, which shows that sally is not older than john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, because if detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect. | If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | modus tollen | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, because if detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of financial problems then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, and john davis had a history of financial problems, which establishes that the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive. | If john davis had a history of financial problems then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | John davis had a history of financial problems | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of financial problems | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of financial problems then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive, and john davis had a history of financial problems, which establishes that the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis has a history of violent behavior 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, therefore john davis does not have a history of violent behavior. | If john davis has a history of violent behavior 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 | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | modus tollen | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | 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 john davis has a history of violent behavior 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, therefore john davis does not have a history of violent behavior.```<|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 dog was found locked in a closet then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, hence laura's dog was not found locked in a closet. | If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | modus tollen | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and the suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, hence laura's dog was not found locked in a closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is laughing at the toy then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, thus the baby is not laughing at the toy. | If the baby is laughing at the toy then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | The baby is not laughing at the toy | modus tollen | The baby is laughing at the toy | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | The baby is not laughing at the toy | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is laughing at the toy then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, thus 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 laura's social media accounts were hacked then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, which establishes that richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account. | If laura's social media accounts were hacked then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | modus ponen | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's social media accounts were hacked then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and laura's social media accounts were hacked, which establishes that richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the tree is tall, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, thus the tree is tall. | If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the tree is tall | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The tree is tall | modus ponen | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The tree is tall | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | The tree is not tall | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then the tree is tall, and the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, thus the tree is tall.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, because if the baby is crawling then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene and the baby is crawling. | If the baby is crawling then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | The baby is crawling | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | modus ponen | The baby is crawling | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | The baby is not crawling | 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: ```A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene, because if the baby is crawling then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene and the baby is crawling.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's garage door was left open then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, and the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain, hence laura's garage door was not left open. | If laura's garage door was left open then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | Laura's garage door was not left open | modus tollen | Laura's garage door was left open | The murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain | Laura's garage door was not left open | The murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's garage door was left open then the murder weapon was a silver revolver found in a storm drain, and the murder weapon was not a silver revolver found in a storm drain, hence laura's garage door was not left open.```<|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, as if a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past. | If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past | John davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | 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 | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, as if a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, since if the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago. | If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | modus ponen | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, since if the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim and the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping on the couch then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap, which establishes that the cat is not sleeping on the couch. | If the cat is sleeping on the couch then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping on the couch | The cat is purring contentedly on my lap | The cat is not sleeping on the couch | The cat is not purring contentedly on my lap | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping on the couch then the cat is purring contentedly on my lap, and the cat is not purring contentedly on my lap, which establishes that 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 detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then laura had a life insurance policy, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so it can be concluded that laura had a life insurance policy. | If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then laura had a life insurance policy | Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Laura had a life insurance policy | modus ponen | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Laura had a life insurance policy | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then laura had a life insurance policy, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so it can be concluded that laura had a life insurance policy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, since if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago. | If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | modus tollen | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, since if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, because if emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a neighbor heard a gunshot and a neighbor did not hear a gunshot. | If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a neighbor heard a gunshot | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | modus tollen | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | A neighbor heard a gunshot | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, because if emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a neighbor heard a gunshot and a neighbor did not hear a gunshot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, since if a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information and a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | modus ponen | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | 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: ```The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information, since if a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information and a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, hence no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the baby is crawling | The baby is not crawling | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The baby is crawling | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The baby is not crawling | 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 footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, hence no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, because if the baby is teething on a toy then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder and the baby is teething on a toy. | If the baby is teething on a toy then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | The baby is teething on a toy | The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | modus ponen | The baby is teething on a toy | The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | The baby is not teething on a toy | The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder, because if the baby is teething on a toy then the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder and the baby is teething on a toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, since if detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the sun is setting slowly and the sun is not setting slowly. | If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the sun is setting slowly | The sun is not setting slowly | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | modus tollen | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | The sun is setting slowly | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | 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: ```Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, since if detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then the sun is setting slowly and the sun is not setting slowly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the television then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and no witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, which implies that the dog is not barking at the television. | If the dog is barking at the television then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The dog is not barking at the television | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the television | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The dog is not barking at the television | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the television then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and no witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, which implies that the dog is not barking at the television.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had bruises on his arms, as if a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then john davis had bruises on his arms and a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard. | If a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then john davis had bruises on his arms | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | John Davis had bruises on his arms | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | John Davis had bruises on his arms | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had bruises on his arms, as if a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard then john davis had bruises on his arms and a 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 john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, therefore john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone. | If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the movie is a comedy-drama | The movie is not a comedy-drama | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | modus tollen | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The movie is a comedy-drama | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The movie is not a comedy-drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, therefore john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and the baby is teething, so laura's personal files were deleted from her computer. | If the baby is teething then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | The baby is teething | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | modus ponen | The baby is teething | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | The baby is not teething | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething then laura's personal files were deleted from her computer, and the baby is teething, so 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 sun is not setting, because if the sun is setting then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle and emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle. | If the sun is setting then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The sun is not setting | modus tollen | The sun is setting | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The sun is not setting | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not setting, because if the sun is setting then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle and emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a comedy-drama then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and the movie is a comedy-drama, which shows that a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house. | If the movie is a comedy-drama then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | The movie is a comedy-drama | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | modus ponen | The movie is a comedy-drama | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The movie is not a comedy-drama | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a comedy-drama then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and the movie is a comedy-drama, which shows that a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the weather is nice, and the weather is not nice, so the suspect's fingerprints were not 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 the weather is nice | The weather is not nice | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | modus tollen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The weather is nice | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The weather is not nice | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the weather is nice, and the weather is not nice, so the suspect's fingerprints were not 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|>
|
If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, which implies that the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. | If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | modus tollen | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, which implies that the suspect's dna was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, which establishes that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft. | If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | modus tollen | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, which establishes that emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, because if the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop. | If the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, because if the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and a diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop.```<|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 empty, suggesting a robbery motive, since if the weather is nice then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive and the weather is nice. | If the weather is nice then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The weather is nice | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | modus ponen | The weather is nice | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | The weather is not nice | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | 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 empty, suggesting a robbery motive, since if the weather is nice then the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive and the weather is nice.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a gas leak was detected in the basement, and a gas leak was not detected in the basement, which shows that the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information. | If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a gas leak was detected in the basement | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | modus tollen | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | A gas leak was detected in the basement | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a gas leak was detected in the basement, and a gas leak was not detected in the basement, which shows that the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis, since if laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby and officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby. | If laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | modus tollen | Laura Martinez had a restraining order against John Davis | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Laura Martinez did not have a restraining order against John Davis | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura martinez did not have a restraining order against john davis, since if laura martinez had a restraining order against john davis then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby and officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar 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 laura's car was found with a slashed tire then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, and the victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, therefore laura's car was not found with a slashed tire. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | modus tollen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, and the victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, therefore laura's car was not found with a slashed tire.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, so the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses. | If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | modus ponen | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | 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: ```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, so the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is laughing at the toy then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, and john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders, which shows that the baby is not laughing at the toy. | If the baby is laughing at the toy then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders | John davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | The baby is not laughing at the toy | modus tollen | The baby is laughing at the toy | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | The baby is not laughing at the toy | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | 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 laughing at the toy then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, and john davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders, which shows that 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|>
|
Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, as if officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the baby is crying loudly and the baby is not crying loudly. | If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the baby is crying loudly | The baby is not crying loudly | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | modus tollen | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | The baby is crying loudly | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | The baby is not crying loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, as if officer brown discovered a hidden basement then the baby is crying loudly and the baby is not crying loudly.```<|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 suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, and the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions, which implies 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 suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | 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 suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, and the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions, which implies that a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, so the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home. | If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe | John davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | modus tollen | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home then john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe, and john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe, so the victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky, which establishes that john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe. | If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | modus tollen | John Davis's fingerprints were found on Laura's safe | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | John Davis's fingerprints were not found on Laura's safe | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis's fingerprints were found on laura's safe then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky, which establishes that john davis's fingerprints were not found on laura's safe.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, as if laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then laura had recently changed her social media passwords and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords. | If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | modus tollen | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, as if laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then laura had recently changed her social media passwords and 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|>
|
If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, so the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary. | If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | modus ponen | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, so the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the 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 the baby is crawling towards the door then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and the baby is crawling towards the door, thus the sun is shining brightly overhead. | If the baby is crawling towards the door then the sun is shining brightly overhead | The baby is crawling towards the door | The sun is shining brightly overhead | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the door | The sun is shining brightly overhead | The baby is not crawling towards the door | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the door then the sun is shining brightly overhead, and the baby is crawling towards the door, thus the sun is shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, thus the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased. | If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | modus ponen | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, and the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, thus the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased.```<|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 surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the baby is crying loudly, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, so it can be concluded that the baby is crying loudly. | If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the baby is crying loudly | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The baby is crying loudly | modus ponen | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The baby is crying loudly | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The baby is not crying loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby then the baby is crying loudly, and a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, so it can be concluded that the baby is crying loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, so no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery. | If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then john davis had a history of stalking laura | John davis did not have a history of stalking laura | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | modus tollen | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, so no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, so it can be concluded that the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim. | If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | modus ponen | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, so it can be concluded that the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was found with a bag of cash then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, which establishes that john davis was not found with a bag of cash. | If john davis was found with a bag of cash then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | Detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | modus tollen | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was found with a bag of cash then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, which establishes that john davis was not found with a bag of cash.```<|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 john davis had a history of substance abuse, and john davis did not have a history of substance abuse, hence the book is not on the nightstand. | If the book is on the nightstand then john davis had a history of substance abuse | John davis did not have a history of substance abuse | The book is not on the nightstand | modus tollen | The book is on the nightstand | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | The book is not on the nightstand | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the nightstand then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and john davis did not have a history of substance abuse, hence 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|>
|
A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, since if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment 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 a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | modus ponen | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, since if the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment 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 laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, and detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, so laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer. | If laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk | Detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | modus tollen | Laura's personal files were deleted from her computer | Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | Laura's personal files were not deleted from her computer | Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily'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 laura's personal files were deleted from her computer then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, and detective washington did not find a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, so laura's personal files were not 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|>
|
Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, since if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery. | If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | modus tollen | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby, since if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery and the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.