Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.
stringlengths 74
421
| If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
stringlengths 36
192
| Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 788
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street
stringclasses 788
values | modus ponen
stringclasses 2
values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1
stringclasses 394
values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street
stringclasses 394
values | True
bool 1
class | text
stringlengths 453
800
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The weather is cloudy and rainy, since if john davis had bruises on his arms then the weather is cloudy and rainy and john davis had bruises on his arms. | If john davis had bruises on his arms then the weather is cloudy and rainy | John davis had bruises on his arms | The weather is cloudy and rainy | modus ponen | John Davis had bruises on his arms | The weather is cloudy and rainy | John Davis did not have bruises on his arms | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The weather is cloudy and rainy, since if john davis had bruises on his arms then the weather is cloudy and rainy and john davis had bruises on his arms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the football is round, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, which implies that the football is round. | If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the football is round | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The football is round | modus ponen | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | The football is round | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | The football is not round | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then the football is round, and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim, which implies that the football is round.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A gas leak was detected in the basement, as if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then a gas leak was detected in the basement and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors. | If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then a gas leak was detected in the basement | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | A gas leak was detected in the basement | modus ponen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | A gas leak was detected in the basement | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | 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: ```A gas leak was detected in the basement, as if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then a gas leak was detected in the basement and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the dog next door then paris is in france, and the dog is barking at the dog next door, therefore paris is in france. | If the dog is barking at the dog next door then paris is in france | The dog is barking at the dog next door | Paris is in France | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the dog next door | Paris is in France | The dog is not barking at the dog next door | 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: ```If the dog is barking at the dog next door then paris is in france, and the dog is barking at the dog next door, therefore paris is in france.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, and the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim, thus officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby. | If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | modus tollen | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim, and the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim, thus officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, which shows that the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact. | If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | 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 suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact then the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, and the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon, which shows that the victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then john davis had a history of financial problems, and john davis did not have a history of financial problems, which shows that witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist. | If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then john davis had a history of financial problems | John davis did not have a history of financial problems | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | modus tollen | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | John Davis had a history of financial problems | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then john davis had a history of financial problems, and john davis did not have a history of financial problems, which shows that witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.```<|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 psychiatric issues then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, hence john davis had a history of violating restraining orders. | If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders | John davis had a history of psychiatric issues | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of psychiatric issues | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | John Davis did not have a history of psychiatric issues | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of psychiatric issues then john davis had a history of violating restraining orders, and john davis had a history of psychiatric issues, hence john davis had a history of violating restraining orders.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething on a toy then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which shows that the baby is not teething on a toy. | If the baby is teething on a toy then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The baby is not teething on a toy | modus tollen | The baby is teething on a toy | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The baby is not teething on a toy | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething on a toy then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which shows that the baby is not teething on a toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft, which shows that a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags. | If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | modus tollen | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft, which shows that a security camera did not show 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 laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a gas leak was detected in the basement, and a gas leak was not detected in the basement, which shows that laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john. | If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a gas leak was detected in the basement | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | modus tollen | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | A gas leak was detected in the basement | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then a gas leak was detected in the basement, and a gas leak was not detected in the basement, which shows that laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the cat then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and the baby is crawling towards the cat, which shows that a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene. | If the baby is crawling towards the cat then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The baby is crawling towards the cat | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the cat | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the cat then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, and the baby is crawling towards the cat, which shows that a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a bestseller then laura's garage door was left open, and the book is a bestseller, thus laura's garage door was left open. | If the book is a bestseller then laura's garage door was left open | The book is a bestseller | Laura's garage door was left open | modus ponen | The book is a bestseller | Laura's garage door was left open | The book is not a bestseller | Laura's garage door was not left open | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a bestseller then laura's garage door was left open, and the book is a bestseller, thus laura's garage door was left open.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sally is older than john then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and john davis did not have a history of substance abuse, so sally is not older than john. | If sally is older than john then john davis had a history of substance abuse | John davis did not have a history of substance abuse | Sally is not older than John | modus tollen | Sally is older than John | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | Sally is not older than John | 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 sally is older than john then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and john davis did not have a history of substance abuse, so sally is not older than john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, and the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities, which establishes that no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence. | If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | modus tollen | A mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | No mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence then the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, and the suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities, which establishes that no mysterious envelope containing cash was delivered to the victim's residence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, because if a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the baby is crawling towards the toy and the baby is not crawling towards the toy. | If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the baby is crawling towards the toy | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | modus tollen | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The baby is crawling towards the toy | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | 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: ```No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, because if a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then the baby is crawling towards the toy and the baby is not crawling towards the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is mild and pleasant then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, which shows that the weather is not mild and pleasant. | If the weather is mild and pleasant then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | The weather is not mild and pleasant | modus tollen | The weather is mild and pleasant | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The weather is not mild and pleasant | The victim did not have a restraining order 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: ```If the weather is mild and pleasant then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, which shows that the weather is not mild and pleasant.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the dog is happy, and the dog is not happy, which implies that no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office. | If a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the dog is happy | The dog is not happy | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | modus tollen | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The dog is happy | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | 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 a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office then the dog is happy, and the dog is not happy, which implies that no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, which implies that emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers. | If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | modus ponen | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, which implies that emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the cat then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and the baby is crawling towards the cat, therefore a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake. | If the baby is crawling towards the cat then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The baby is crawling towards the cat | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | modus ponen | The baby is crawling towards the cat | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the cat then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and the baby is crawling towards the cat, therefore a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.```<|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 baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, so the cat is not black. | If the cat is black then the baby is crawling | The baby is not crawling | The cat is not black | modus tollen | The cat is black | The baby is crawling | The cat is not black | The baby is not crawling | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is black then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, so the cat is not black.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, as if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene. | If a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | modus ponen | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, as if a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death and a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, because if surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car and a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | 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 | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | 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: ```Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, because if surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car and a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's garage door was left open then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and laura's garage door was left open, so it can be concluded that a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster. | If laura's garage door was left open then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | Laura's garage door was left open | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | modus ponen | Laura's garage door was left open | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | Laura's garage door was not left open | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's garage door was left open then a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, and laura's garage door was left open, so it can be concluded that a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cloudy and rainy then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and the weather is cloudy and rainy, which implies that laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal. | If the weather is cloudy and rainy then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | The weather is cloudy and rainy | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | modus ponen | The weather is cloudy and rainy | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cloudy and rainy then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal, and the weather is cloudy and rainy, which implies that laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a secret storage unit then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence john davis did not have a secret storage unit. | If john davis had a secret storage unit then the arson occurred on elm street | The arson did not occur on elm street | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | modus tollen | John Davis had a secret storage unit | The arson occurred on Elm Street | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | The arson did not occur on Elm Street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a secret storage unit then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence 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 the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars. | If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | modus tollen | The stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | The stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen jewels were worth over a million dollars then a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, and no witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, so it can be concluded that the stolen jewels were not worth over a million dollars.```<|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 a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction, thus laura's house was not booby-trapped. | If laura's house was booby-trapped then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction | A jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | modus tollen | Laura's house was booby-trapped | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's house was booby-trapped then a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, did not have a gambling addiction, thus 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|>
|
If the water is warm then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and the water is warm, so john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit. | If the water is warm then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The water is warm | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus ponen | The water is warm | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The water is not warm | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the water is warm then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and the water is warm, so john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, which shows that the cat is not purring. | If the cat is purring then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The cat is not purring | modus tollen | The cat is purring | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The cat is not purring | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring then a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, and no surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, which shows that 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 a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, which implies that the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country. | If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | modus ponen | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, which implies that the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, which shows that the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number. | If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | modus ponen | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, and laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, which shows that the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and officer brown discovered a hidden basement, therefore a broken window was found in laura's bedroom. | If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom | Officer brown discovered a hidden basement | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | modus ponen | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer brown discovered a hidden basement then a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, and officer brown discovered a hidden basement, therefore a broken window was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, thus a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car. | If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the baby is teething on a toy | The baby is not teething on a toy | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | modus tollen | A neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The baby is teething on a toy | A neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car | The baby is not teething on a toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car then the baby is teething on a toy, and the baby is not teething on a toy, thus a neighbor did not report seeing the suspect with a bag of cement in their car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, which shows that sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it | The murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | modus tollen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | 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 sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, and the murder weapon did not have sarah's dna on it, which shows that sarah's blood was not found on emily'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 laura's jewelry box was emptied then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, so the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home. | If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | modus ponen | Laura's jewelry box was emptied | The victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home | Laura's jewelry box was not emptied | The victim's security system did not record the suspect entering their home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's jewelry box was emptied then the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home, and laura's jewelry box was emptied, so the victim's security system recorded the suspect entering their home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, so it can be concluded that officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet. | If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then the dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is not barking at the mailman | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | modus tollen | Officer Lewis found a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | The dog is barking at the mailman | Officer Lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in Sarah's closet | The dog is not barking at the mailman | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer lewis found a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, so it can be concluded that officer lewis did not find a hidden stash of cash in sarah's closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, because if a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id. | If a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus ponen | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, because if a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit and a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, which implies that laura's medical records were accessed without authorization. | If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | modus ponen | The victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The victim's will had not been updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, and the victim's will had been recently updated, naming the suspect as the sole beneficiary, which implies that laura's medical records were accessed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and the sun is shining, which implies that john davis had a history of stalking laura. | If the sun is shining then john davis had a history of stalking laura | The sun is shining | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | modus ponen | The sun is shining | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | The sun is not shining | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and the sun is shining, which implies that john davis had a history of stalking laura.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, which establishes that the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors. | If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | A broken window was found in laura's bedroom | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | modus ponen | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and a broken window was found in laura's bedroom, which establishes that the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's social media accounts were hacked then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, thus laura's social media accounts were not hacked. | If laura's social media accounts were hacked then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse | Detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | modus tollen | Laura's social media accounts were hacked | Detective Nguyen found a threatening note in Sarah's purse | Laura's social media accounts were not hacked | Detective Nguyen did not find a threatening note in Sarah's purse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's social media accounts were hacked then detective nguyen found a threatening note in sarah's purse, and detective nguyen did not find a threatening note in sarah's purse, thus 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 neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, and detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, so laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | Detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | modus tollen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the 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: ```If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, and detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement, so laura's neighbors did not report 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 the eiffel tower is in paris then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and the eiffel tower is in paris, so a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office. | If the eiffel tower is in paris then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The eiffel tower is in paris | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | modus ponen | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the eiffel tower is in paris then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and the eiffel tower is in paris, so a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, so it can be concluded that a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder. | If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | The murder weapon had sarah's dna on it | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | modus ponen | The murder weapon had Sarah's DNA on it | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | The murder weapon did not have Sarah's DNA on it | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder, and the murder weapon had sarah's dna on it, so it can be concluded that a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, which implies that a security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags. | If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | modus tollen | A security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | A security camera did not show the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera showed the suspect purchasing a shovel and trash bags then sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, and sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, which implies that a security camera did not show 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|>
|
The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number, since if the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the book is on the table and the book is not on the table. | If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the book is on the table | The book is not on the table | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | modus tollen | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The book is on the table | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | The book is not on the table | 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 phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number, since if the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then the book is on the table and the book is not on the table.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, so john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape. | If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | modus ponen | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker then john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape, and the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, so john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, so a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard. | If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | modus ponen | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, so a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, therefore a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake. | If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | modus ponen | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | A witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | A witness does not claim to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake, and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, therefore a witness claims to have seen a suspicious van with a logo resembling a snake.```<|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 house was booby-trapped, as if john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then laura's house was booby-trapped and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck. | If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then laura's house was booby-trapped | John davis had scratches on his arms and neck | Laura's house was booby-trapped | modus ponen | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | Laura's house was booby-trapped | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's house was booby-trapped, as if john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then laura's house was booby-trapped and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck.```<|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 football is round then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, and the football is round, which shows that the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery. | If the football is round then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | The football is round | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | modus ponen | The football is round | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | The football is not round | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the football is round then the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery, and the football is round, which shows that the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the eiffel tower is in paris then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and the eiffel tower is in paris, which shows that a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession. | If the eiffel tower is in paris then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The eiffel tower is in paris | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | modus ponen | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the eiffel tower is in paris then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and the eiffel tower is in paris, which shows that a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, as if a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect and a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen. | If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | A cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | modus ponen | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | 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 victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, as if a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect and a 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 movie is a family film then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and the movie is a family film, which establishes that a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox. | If the movie is a family film then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox | The movie is a family film | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | modus ponen | The movie is a family film | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | The movie is not a family film | 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 the movie is a family film then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and the movie is a family film, which establishes that a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the phone is ringing then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the phone is not ringing. | If the phone is ringing then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | The phone is not ringing | modus tollen | The phone is ringing | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | The phone is not ringing | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the phone is ringing then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and a strand of hair was not found at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the phone is not ringing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, which establishes that a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard. | If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | modus ponen | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, which establishes that a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.```<|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 pizza is hot then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, and laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, thus the pizza is not hot. | If the pizza is hot then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | The pizza is not hot | modus tollen | The pizza is hot | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | The pizza is not hot | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the pizza is hot then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, and laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, thus the pizza is not hot.```<|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 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. | If the baby is crawling towards the toy 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 baby is not crawling towards the toy | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the toy | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The baby is not crawling towards the toy | 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: ```The baby is not crawling towards the toy, since if the baby is crawling towards the toy 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.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, because if a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning. | If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | modus ponen | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, because if a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store and a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had installed a home security system then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, thus laura had not installed a home security system. | If laura had installed a home security system then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | No hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | Laura had not installed a home security system | modus tollen | Laura had installed a home security system | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | Laura had not installed a home security system | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had installed a home security system then a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, and no hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, thus laura had not installed a home security system.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If paris is in france then the weather is mild and pleasant, and paris is in france, which implies that the weather is mild and pleasant. | If paris is in france then the weather is mild and pleasant | Paris is in france | The weather is mild and pleasant | modus ponen | Paris is in France | The weather is mild and pleasant | Paris is not in France | The weather is not mild and pleasant | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If paris is in france then the weather is mild and pleasant, and paris is in france, which implies that the weather is mild and pleasant.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is setting, as if officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the sun is setting and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store. | If officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the sun is setting | Officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | The sun is setting | modus ponen | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | The sun is setting | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | The sun is not setting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is setting, as if officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store then the sun is setting and officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is drinking from a bottle then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, and the baby is drinking from a bottle, so laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident. | If the baby is drinking from a bottle then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | The baby is drinking from a bottle | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | modus ponen | The baby is drinking from a bottle | Laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | Laura's alarm system was not disabled before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is drinking from a bottle then laura's alarm system was disabled before the incident, and the baby is drinking from a bottle, so laura's alarm system was disabled 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 suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, as if the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene and officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene. | If the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | Officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had no history of making anonymous threats to the victim, as if the suspect had a history of making anonymous threats to the victim then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene and officer jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, which establishes that a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene. | If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | modus ponen | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, which establishes that a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, since if the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then laura's garage door was left open and laura's garage door was not left open. | If the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then laura's garage door was left open | Laura's garage door was not left open | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | modus tollen | The store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery | Laura's garage door was left open | The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery | Laura's garage door was not left open | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The store's alarm system was not disabled during the robbery, since if the store's alarm system was disabled during the robbery then laura's garage door was left open and laura's garage door was not left open.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a horror film then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, and no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, which implies that the movie is not a horror film. | If the movie is a horror film then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | The movie is not a horror film | modus tollen | The movie is a horror film | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | The movie is not a horror film | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a horror film then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, and no witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, which implies that the movie is not a horror film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo, so it can be concluded that a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder. | If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo | A homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | modus tollen | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | 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 a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, did not recognize emily from a photo, so it can be concluded that a toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior 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 laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, so it can be concluded that a strand of hair was found at the crime scene. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | modus ponen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | A strand of hair was found at the crime scene | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | A strand of hair was not found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then a strand of hair was found at the crime scene, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, so it can be concluded that a strand of hair was found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, so it can be concluded that the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data. | If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | modus ponen | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, so it can be concluded that the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is a hybrid then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, which establishes that the car is not a hybrid. | If the car is a hybrid then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | The car is not a hybrid | modus tollen | The car is a hybrid | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | The car is not a hybrid | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a hybrid then a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home, and a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home, which establishes that the car is not a hybrid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not a memoir, since if the book is a memoir then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat and a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat. | If the book is a memoir then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat | A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat | The book is not a memoir | modus tollen | The book is a memoir | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | The book is not a memoir | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not a memoir, since if the book is a memoir then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat and a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, which implies that the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder. | If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The suspect's phone records did not place them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, which implies that the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the stranger then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, therefore the dog is not barking at the stranger. | If the dog is barking at the stranger then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone | The dog is not barking at the stranger | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the stranger | A cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | The dog is not barking at the stranger | No cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on Sarah's phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the stranger then a cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, and no cryptic text message from an unknown number was found on sarah's phone, therefore the dog is not barking at the stranger.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, so it can be concluded that no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house. | If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, so it can be concluded 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 alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, which shows that the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery. | If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | modus tollen | The alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery | A hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | The alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery | No hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the alarm company technician reported suspicious activity before the robbery then a hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, and no hidden camera recorded the suspect entering the victim's office, which shows that the alarm company technician did not report suspicious activity before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The murder weapon was not a baseball bat, since if the murder weapon was a baseball bat then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder and emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder. | If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | modus tollen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals 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 murder weapon was not a baseball bat, since if the murder weapon was a baseball bat then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder and emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not on the nightstand, as if the book is on the nightstand then laura's laptop was found smashed and laura's laptop was not found smashed. | If the book is on the nightstand then laura's laptop was found smashed | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | The book is not on the nightstand | modus tollen | The book is on the nightstand | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The book is not on the nightstand | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not on the nightstand, as if the book is on the nightstand then laura's laptop was found smashed and laura's laptop was not found smashed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, which shows that surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store. | If surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | 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 surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store then a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, and no neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, which shows that surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then paris is in france, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, thus paris is in france. | If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then paris is in france | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | Paris is in France | modus ponen | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | Paris is in France | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | 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: ```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then paris is in france, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, thus paris is in france.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot, since if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a neighbor heard a gunshot and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a neighbor heard a gunshot | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | A neighbor heard a gunshot | modus ponen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | A neighbor heard a gunshot | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor heard a gunshot, since if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then a neighbor heard a gunshot and emily's fingerprints were found on 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|>
|
A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, because if a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard. | If a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | modus ponen | A neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | No neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around Laura's yard | No security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene, because if a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard then a security guard reported seeing the suspect acting suspiciously near the crime scene and a neighbor saw a mysterious figure lurking around laura's yard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is not barking at the mailman, as if the dog is barking at the mailman then 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 the dog is barking at the mailman then a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | The dog is not barking at the mailman | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mailman | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | The dog is not barking at the mailman | 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: ```The dog is not barking at the mailman, as if the dog is barking at the mailman 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 diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, so the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors. | If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | modus ponen | A diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | A diamond necklace from the store was not found in a pawn shop | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop then the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, and a diamond necklace from the store was found in a pawn shop, so the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, since if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information. | If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | modus tollen | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization, since if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, so it can be concluded that emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout. | If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | modus tollen | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, so it can be concluded that emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, which shows that officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby. | If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | modus ponen | Sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Sarah's neighbor did not report hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder then officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, and sarah's neighbor reported hearing a gunshot on the night of the murder, which shows that officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring contentedly then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and the cat is purring contentedly, so emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder. | If the cat is purring contentedly then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The cat is purring contentedly | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | modus ponen | The cat is purring contentedly | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The cat is not purring contentedly | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring contentedly then emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, and the cat is purring contentedly, so emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after 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 john davis has a history of violent behavior then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the weather is not cloudy and rainy, which shows that john davis does not have a history of violent behavior. | If john davis has a history of violent behavior then the weather is cloudy and rainy | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | modus tollen | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | The weather is cloudy and rainy | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis has a history of violent behavior then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the weather is not cloudy and rainy, which shows that john davis does not have a history of violent behavior.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the baby is laughing at the toy, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, so the baby is laughing at the toy. | If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the baby is laughing at the toy | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | The baby is laughing at the toy | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities | The baby is laughing at the toy | The suspect had no history of using aliases and false identities | The baby is not laughing at the toy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities then the baby is laughing at the toy, and the suspect had a history of using aliases and false identities, so the baby is laughing at the toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, which establishes that a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily. | If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | A homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | modus ponen | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, recognized Emily from a photo | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | A homeless shelter worker, Maria, did not recognize Emily from a photo | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo then a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, and a homeless shelter worker, maria, recognized emily from a photo, which establishes that a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, so it can be concluded that the victim had not 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 laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john, and laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from john, so it can be concluded that the victim had not 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|>
|
If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, which establishes that no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby. | If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | modus tollen | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby then surveillance footage shows a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, and surveillance footage does not show a figure in a clown mask approaching the store, which establishes that no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a horror film then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, which shows that the movie is not a horror film. | If the movie is a horror film then the dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is not barking at the mailman | The movie is not a horror film | modus tollen | The movie is a horror film | The dog is barking at the mailman | The movie is not a horror film | The dog is not barking at the mailman | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a horror film then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, which shows that the movie is not a horror film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, and a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, so the book is not written by a famous author. | If the book is written by a famous author then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | The book is not written by a famous author | modus tollen | The book is written by a famous author | A forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | The book is not written by a famous author | A forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then a forensic expert found gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, and a forensic expert did not find gunshot residue on the suspect's clothing, so the book is not written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats, since if laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the car is parked on the street and the car is not parked on the street. | If laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the car is parked on the street | The car is not parked on the street | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | modus tollen | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | The car is parked on the street | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | The car is not parked on the street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats, since if laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats then the car is parked on the street and the car is not parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, which establishes that a broken chair was not found in the kitchen. | If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | modus tollen | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and a map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in emily's home, which establishes that a broken chair was not found in the kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, which shows that officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store. | If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, which shows that 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|>
|
The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, as if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then laura's garage door was left open and laura's garage door was not left open. | If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then laura's garage door was left open | Laura's garage door was not left open | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | Laura's garage door was left open | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | Laura's garage door was not left open | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors, as if the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then laura's garage door was left open and laura's garage door was not left open.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.