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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, since if the book is written by a famous author then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse and the book is written by a famous author. | If the book is written by a famous author then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | The book is written by a famous author | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | modus ponen | The book is written by a famous author | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | The book is not written by a famous author | 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: ```Detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, since if the book is written by a famous author then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse and the book is written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the movie is a drama, and the movie is not a drama, therefore forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing. | If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the movie is a drama | The movie is not a drama | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | modus tollen | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The movie is a drama | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The movie is not a drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing then the movie is a drama, and the movie is not a drama, therefore forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, hence the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder. | If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then john davis had a history of identity theft | John davis did not have a history of identity theft | The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder | modus tollen | The suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder | John Davis had a history of identity theft | The suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's phone records placed them at the scene of the murder then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, hence the suspect's phone records did not place them at the scene of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, as if the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect. | If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | modus ponen | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, as if the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into 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|>
|
Richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, because if richard anderson had a history of financial troubles 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. | If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles 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 | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | modus tollen | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | 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: ```Richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, because if richard anderson had a history of financial troubles 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.```<|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 the weather is cold and rainy, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, so the weather is cold and rainy. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the weather is cold and rainy | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The weather is cold and rainy | modus ponen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The weather is cold and rainy | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The weather is not cold and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the weather is cold and rainy, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, so 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 jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then laura's pet cat is missing, and laura's pet cat is not missing, so the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago. | If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then laura's pet cat is missing | Laura's pet cat is not missing | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | modus tollen | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | Laura's pet cat is missing | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | Laura's pet cat is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then laura's pet cat is missing, and laura's pet cat is not missing, so 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|>
|
The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, because if a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | modus ponen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim, because if a security camera captured the suspect entering the building then the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim and a security camera captured the suspect entering the building.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, since if a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then john davis had a secret storage unit and john davis did not have a secret storage unit. | If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then john davis had a secret storage unit | John davis did not have a secret storage unit | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | modus tollen | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | John Davis had a secret storage unit | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, since if a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then john davis had a secret storage unit and john davis did not have a secret storage unit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, so sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily. | If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | A witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | modus ponen | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, so sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to 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 sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, which implies that a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | modus ponen | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, which implies that a 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|>
|
Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, as if laura's car was found with a slashed tire then the book is a biography and the book is not a biography. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then the book is a biography | The book is not a biography | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | modus tollen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | The book is a biography | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | The book is not a biography | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, as if laura's car was found with a slashed tire then the book is a biography and the book is not a biography.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, so a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder. | If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | modus tollen | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, and the suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, so a restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the book is a mystery novel, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, which implies that the book is a mystery novel. | If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the book is a mystery novel | The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The book is a mystery novel | modus ponen | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The book is a mystery novel | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The book is not a mystery novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the book is a mystery novel, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, which implies that the book is a mystery novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not black, as if the cat is black then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene and a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene. | If the cat is black then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | A jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene | The cat is not black | modus tollen | The cat is black | A jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene | The cat is not black | 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: ```The cat is not black, as if the cat is black then a jeweler's toolset was missing from the crime scene and a jeweler's toolset was not missing from the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, therefore a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car. | If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | modus ponen | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, therefore a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, hence the cat is not purring. | If the cat is purring then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The cat is not purring | modus tollen | The cat is purring | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The cat is not purring | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, hence the cat is not purring.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is moving then the dog is happy, and the dog is not happy, which shows that the car is not moving. | If the car is moving then the dog is happy | The dog is not happy | The car is not moving | modus tollen | The car is moving | The dog is happy | The car is not moving | The dog is not happy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is moving then the dog is happy, and the dog is not happy, which shows that the car is not moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, as if officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store. | If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | modus ponen | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, as if officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the suspect's name is john davis, and the suspect's name is not john davis, which establishes that surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the suspect's name is john davis | The suspect's name is not john davis | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | modus tollen | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The suspect's name is John Davis | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The suspect's name is not John Davis | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the suspect's name is john davis, and the suspect's name is not john davis, which establishes that surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, which shows that a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment. | If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | A handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | modus ponen | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | 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: ```If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, which shows that a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with toys then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, thus the baby is not playing with toys. | If the baby is playing with toys then john davis had a history of identity theft | John davis did not have a history of identity theft | The baby is not playing with toys | modus tollen | The baby is playing with toys | John Davis had a history of identity theft | The baby is not playing with toys | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with toys then john davis had a history of identity theft, and john davis did not have a history of identity theft, thus the baby is not playing with toys.```<|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 a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, therefore a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo. | If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | 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 a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, therefore a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, as if a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery. | If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | modus tollen | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, as if a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery and no homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The eiffel tower is not in paris, as if the eiffel tower is in paris then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses. | If the eiffel tower is in paris then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | modus tollen | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The eiffel tower is not in paris, as if the eiffel tower is in paris then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the bestseller list then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, and john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues, which establishes that the book is not on the bestseller list. | If the book is on the bestseller list then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues | John davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | The book is not on the bestseller list | modus tollen | The book is on the bestseller list | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | The book is not on the bestseller list | 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 book is on the bestseller list then john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, and john davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues, which establishes that the book is not on the bestseller list.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, and surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, which establishes that no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house. | If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near 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 neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, and surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store, which establishes that no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the arson occurred on elm street then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, which establishes that the arson did not occur on elm street. | If the arson occurred on elm street then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | modus tollen | The arson occurred on Elm Street | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the arson occurred on elm street then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed, and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed, which establishes that the arson did not occur on elm street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, therefore the baby is crawling towards the cat. | If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then the baby is crawling towards the cat | John davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | The baby is crawling towards the cat | modus ponen | John Davis had a collection of disturbing photographs | The baby is crawling towards the cat | John Davis did not have a collection of disturbing photographs | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and john davis had a collection of disturbing photographs, therefore the baby is crawling towards the cat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, because if a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house. | If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | modus ponen | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, because if a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, which shows that richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account. | If a shattered vase was found in the hallway then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | modus ponen | A shattered vase was found in the hallway | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | A shattered vase was not found in the hallway | 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 a shattered vase was found in the hallway then richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account, and a shattered vase was found in the hallway, which shows 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 sun is setting then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the sun is setting, so the dog is barking at the neighbors. | If the sun is setting then the dog is barking at the neighbors | The sun is setting | The dog is barking at the neighbors | modus ponen | The sun is setting | The dog is barking at the neighbors | The sun is not setting | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the sun is setting, so the dog is barking at the neighbors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not teething on a toy, because if the baby is teething on a toy 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 the baby is teething on a toy 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 | The baby is not teething on a toy | modus tollen | The baby is teething on a toy | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The baby is not teething on a toy | 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: ```The baby is not teething on a toy, because if the baby is teething on a toy 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|>
|
John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, as if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest and the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive. | If the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | modus ponen | The victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | The victim's jewelry box was not empty, suggesting a robbery motive | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, as if the victim's jewelry box was empty, suggesting a robbery motive then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest and 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|>
|
The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, because if the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats. | If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | modus tollen | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars, because if the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats and laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, which shows that a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car. | If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | modus ponen | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car, and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, which shows that a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If water is h2o then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, and emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, hence water is not h2o. | If water is h2o then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder | Emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder | Water is not H2O | modus tollen | Water is H2O | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | Water is not H2O | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If water is h2o then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, and emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, hence water is not h2o.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is moving then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and the car is moving, thus laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident. | If the car is moving then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | The car is moving | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | modus ponen | The car is moving | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | The car is not moving | 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 the car is moving then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and the car is moving, thus 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|>
|
The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, since if the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard and the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery. | If the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | modus ponen | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard, since if the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery then the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard and the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, which implies that the murder weapon was a baseball bat. | If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then the murder weapon was a baseball bat | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | modus ponen | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted, which implies that the murder weapon was a baseball bat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is sleeping soundly, because if the suspect's name is john davis then the cat is sleeping soundly and the suspect's name is john davis. | If the suspect's name is john davis then the cat is sleeping soundly | The suspect's name is john davis | The cat is sleeping soundly | modus ponen | The suspect's name is John Davis | The cat is sleeping soundly | The suspect's name is not John Davis | The cat is not sleeping soundly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is sleeping soundly, because if the suspect's name is john davis then the cat is sleeping soundly and the suspect's name is john davis.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Paris is in france, because if a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then paris is in france and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment. | If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then paris is in france | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | Paris is in France | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | Paris is in France | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | Paris is not in France | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Paris is in france, because if a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then paris is in france and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, hence a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags. | If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | A homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | modus ponen | A homeless man named Charlie claims to have seen the culprits | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | A homeless man named Charlie does not claim to have seen the culprits | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits then a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags, and a homeless man named charlie claims to have seen the culprits, hence a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags.```<|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 suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then dogs are not fish, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, which implies that dogs are not fish. | If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then dogs are not fish | A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | Dogs are not fish | modus ponen | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | Dogs are not fish | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | Dogs are fish | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep then dogs are not fish, and a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, which implies that dogs are not fish.```<|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 did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information, since if the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument. | If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | 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 neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information, since if the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument and a neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, and the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation, hence 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | 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 coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, and the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation, hence 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|>
|
A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, because if the car is a sedan then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and the car is a sedan. | If the car is a sedan then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The car is a sedan | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | modus ponen | The car is a sedan | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The car is not a sedan | 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: ```A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, because if the car is a sedan then a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop and the car is a sedan.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then laura's mail was tampered with, and a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, which shows that laura's mail was tampered with. | If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then laura's mail was tampered with | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | Laura's mail was tampered with | modus ponen | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | Laura's mail was tampered with | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | Laura's mail was not tampered with | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then laura's mail was tampered with, and a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, which shows that laura's mail was tampered with.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the baby is not drinking from a bottle, therefore a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox. | If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the baby is drinking from a bottle | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | modus tollen | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | The baby is drinking from a bottle | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | 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 handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the baby is not drinking from a bottle, therefore a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, hence sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house. | If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | A gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | modus tollen | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, hence sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, since if laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | modus ponen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, since if laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors and laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van.```<|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 the cat is black, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which establishes that the cat is black. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the cat is black | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The cat is black | modus ponen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The cat is black | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The cat is not black | 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 the cat is black, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which establishes that the cat is black.```<|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 office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact, because if the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation and the coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation. | If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | modus tollen | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact, because if the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation and 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 delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, thus a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store. | If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | modus tollen | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, thus a delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, thus the store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery. | If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | A gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | modus tollen | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, thus the 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|>
|
If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the apple is red, and the apple is not red, which shows that no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house. | If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the apple is red | The apple is not red | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | The apple is red | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | The apple is not red | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the apple is red, and the apple is not red, which shows that no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is laughing at the toy then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and no witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, therefore the baby is not laughing at the toy. | If the baby is laughing at the toy then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The baby is not laughing at the toy | modus tollen | The baby is laughing at the toy | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The baby is not laughing at the toy | 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 baby is laughing at the toy then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and no witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, therefore 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|>
|
The movie is not a family film, because if the movie is a family film then the book is a romance novel and the book is not a romance novel. | If the movie is a family film then the book is a romance novel | The book is not a romance novel | The movie is not a family film | modus tollen | The movie is a family film | The book is a romance novel | The movie is not a family film | The book is not a romance novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a family film, because if the movie is a family film then the book is a romance novel and the book is not a romance novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, so john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents. | If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | modus tollen | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home 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 john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, so john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the door then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, therefore the dog is not barking at the door. | If the dog is barking at the door then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The dog is not barking at the door | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the door | A surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | The dog is not barking at the door | A surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the door then a surveillance camera caught a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, and a surveillance camera did not catch a glimpse of a suspicious van parked nearby, therefore the dog is not barking at the door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, thus detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard. | If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | Detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | modus ponen | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | 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 detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter, thus detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, which implies that the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions. | If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | modus ponen | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, which implies that the suspect's social media accounts contained 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|>
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, therefore the stolen van was registered in a fake name. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | modus ponen | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, therefore the stolen van was registered in a fake name.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a family film then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, thus the movie is not a family film. | If the movie is a family film then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | The movie is not a family film | modus tollen | The movie is a family film | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | The movie is not a family film | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a family film then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, thus the movie is not a family film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, since if a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night 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. | If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night 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 | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | 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: ```No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, since if a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room, since if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and the sun is setting slowly in the sky. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a bloody footprint was found in the living room | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus ponen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A bloody footprint was found in the living room, since if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and the sun is setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, thus the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident. | If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | modus ponen | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during 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 hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, thus the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is interesting then laura's social media accounts were hacked, and the book is interesting, hence laura's social media accounts were hacked. | If the book is interesting then laura's social media accounts were hacked | The book is interesting | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | modus ponen | The book is interesting | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | The book is not interesting | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | 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 interesting then laura's social media accounts were hacked, and the book is interesting, hence laura's social media accounts were hacked.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the cat is purring contentedly, and the cat is not purring contentedly, which establishes that detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom. | If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the cat is purring contentedly | The cat is not purring contentedly | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | modus tollen | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The cat is purring contentedly | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The cat is not purring contentedly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom then the cat is purring contentedly, and the cat is not purring contentedly, which establishes that detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah'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 suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair, therefore the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities. | If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair, therefore the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, therefore a broken chair was found in the kitchen. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a broken chair was found in the kitchen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | modus ponen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, therefore a broken chair was found in the kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Dogs are not fish, because if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then dogs are not fish and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder. | If emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then dogs are not fish | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Dogs are not fish | modus ponen | Emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Dogs are not fish | Emily does not claim to have lost her phone on the night of the murder | Dogs are fish | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Dogs are not fish, because if emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder then dogs are not fish and emily claims to have lost her phone on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, so it can be concluded that the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder. | If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | modus tollen | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, so it can be concluded that the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is grooming itself then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the cat is grooming itself, so it can be concluded that the sun is setting slowly in the sky. | If the cat is grooming itself then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | The cat is grooming itself | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | modus ponen | The cat is grooming itself | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The cat is not grooming itself | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | 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 grooming itself then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the cat is grooming itself, so it can be concluded that the sun is setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, because if a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then a gas leak was detected in the basement and a gas leak was not detected in the basement. | If a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then a gas leak was detected in the basement | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | modus tollen | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | A gas leak was detected in the basement | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | 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: ```No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, because if a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone then a gas leak was detected in the basement and a gas leak was not detected in the basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, as if laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed. | If laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | modus ponen | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | 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: ```The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, as if laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder and laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not crawling towards the toy, since if the baby is crawling towards the toy then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home and no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home. | If the baby is crawling towards the toy then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the toy | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not crawling towards the toy, since if the baby is crawling towards the toy then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home and no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething on a toy then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and the baby is teething on a toy, so it can be concluded that a security camera captured the suspect entering the building. | If the baby is teething on a toy then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The baby is teething on a toy | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | modus ponen | The baby is teething on a toy | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The baby is not teething on a toy | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething on a toy then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building, and the baby is teething on a toy, so it can be concluded that a security camera captured the suspect entering the building.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is on the bestseller list then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and the book is on the bestseller list, which shows that john davis had a history of anger management issues. | If the book is on the bestseller list then john davis had a history of anger management issues | The book is on the bestseller list | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | modus ponen | The book is on the bestseller list | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | The book is not on the bestseller list | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is on the bestseller list then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and the book is on the bestseller list, which shows that john davis had a history of anger management issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, which implies that the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it. | If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it | The suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | modus ponen | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, which implies that the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, which implies that john davis did not have a history of identity theft. | If john davis had a history of identity theft then officer brown discovered a hidden basement | Officer brown did not discover a hidden basement | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of identity theft | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | 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 john davis had a history of identity theft then officer brown discovered a hidden basement, and officer brown did not discover a hidden basement, which implies that john davis did not have 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|>
|
If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of emily. | If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | modus tollen | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, had sessions notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | Sarah's therapist, Dr. Anderson, did not have session notes indicating Sarah's fear of Emily | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, had sessions notes indicating sarah's fear of emily then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, so sarah's therapist, dr. anderson, did not have session notes indicating sarah's fear of 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 suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and john davis did not have a history of substance abuse, so the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon. | If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then john davis had a history of substance abuse | John davis did not have a history of substance abuse | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | 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 suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and john davis did not have a history of substance abuse, so the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's prescription medications were stolen then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and laura's prescription medications were stolen, thus the murder weapon was a baseball bat. | If laura's prescription medications were stolen then the murder weapon was a baseball bat | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | modus ponen | Laura's prescription medications were stolen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | Laura's prescription medications were not stolen | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's prescription medications were stolen then the murder weapon was a baseball bat, and laura's prescription medications were stolen, thus the murder weapon was a baseball bat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, since if laura's dog was found locked in a closet then laura's social media accounts were hacked and laura's social media accounts were not hacked. | If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then laura's social media accounts were hacked | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | modus tollen | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, since if laura's dog was found locked in a closet then laura's social media accounts were hacked and laura's social media accounts were not hacked.```<|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 house was booby-trapped then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, so laura's house was not booby-trapped. | If laura's house was booby-trapped then laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | modus tollen | Laura's house was booby-trapped | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's house was booby-trapped then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, so laura's house was not booby-trapped.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, as if a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed. | If a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | modus tollen | A delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A delivery driver did not report seeing a masked man near the jewelry store, as if a delivery driver reported seeing a masked man near the jewelry store then the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed and the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The car is not moving, since if the car is moving then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased and the jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased. | If the car is moving then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | The car is not moving | modus tollen | The car is moving | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | The car is not moving | 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: ```The car is not moving, since if the car is moving then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased and the jewelry store's insurance policy had not 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 cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, so it can be concluded that no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen. | If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox | A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | modus tollen | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, so it can be concluded that no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, so a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle. | If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | modus ponen | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, so a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, because if the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car and no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car. | If the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car | No bloody shirt was found in john davis's car | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | modus tollen | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, because if the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car and no bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, which shows that a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus ponen | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, which shows that a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then the cat is purring contentedly, and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, which implies that the cat is purring contentedly. | If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then the cat is purring contentedly | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | The cat is purring contentedly | modus ponen | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | The cat is purring contentedly | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | The cat is not purring contentedly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then the cat is purring contentedly, and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, which implies that the cat is purring contentedly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a thriller then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, so it can be concluded that the movie is not a thriller. | If the movie is a thriller then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | The movie is not a thriller | modus tollen | The movie is a thriller | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | The movie is not a thriller | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a thriller then a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, and a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle, so it can be concluded that the movie is not a thriller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security camera captured the suspect entering the building, since if the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage. | If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | modus ponen | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | A security camera captured the suspect entering the building | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | No security camera captured the suspect entering the building | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A security camera captured the suspect entering the building, since if the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then a security camera captured the suspect entering the building and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is black then the dog is happy, and the cat is black, which implies that the dog is happy. | If the cat is black then the dog is happy | The cat is black | The dog is happy | modus ponen | The cat is black | The dog is happy | The cat is not black | The dog is not happy | 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 black then the dog is happy, and the cat is black, which implies that the dog is happy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cold and snowy 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, which shows that the weather is not cold and snowy. | If the weather is cold and snowy 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 | The weather is not cold and snowy | modus tollen | The weather is cold and snowy | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The weather is not cold and snowy | 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 the weather is cold and snowy 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, which shows that the weather is not cold and snowy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms, so it can be concluded that a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine. | If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms | John davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | modus tollen | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine then john davis had a cache of illegal firearms, and john davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms, so it can be concluded that a threatening message was not left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, since if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | modus ponen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace, since if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace and a 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 victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and the baby is not crawling towards the toy, so the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder. | If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the baby is crawling towards the toy | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | modus tollen | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder then the baby is crawling towards the toy, and the baby is not crawling towards the toy, so the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.