Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.
stringlengths 74
421
| If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
stringlengths 36
192
| Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 788
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street
stringclasses 788
values | modus ponen
stringclasses 2
values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1
stringclasses 394
values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street
stringclasses 394
values | True
bool 1
class | text
stringlengths 453
800
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then the cat is purring contentedly, and the cat is not purring contentedly, which implies that no witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder. | If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then the cat is purring contentedly | The cat is not purring contentedly | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | modus tollen | A witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | The cat is purring contentedly | No witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder | The cat is not purring contentedly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing the suspect with a weapon on the night of the murder then the cat is purring contentedly, and the cat is not purring contentedly, which implies that 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 the dog is barking then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, therefore the dog is not barking. | If the dog is barking then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | The dog is not barking | modus tollen | The dog is barking | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The dog is not barking | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, therefore the dog is not barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething then the baby is crying, and the baby is not crying, so the baby is not teething. | If the baby is teething then the baby is crying | The baby is not crying | The baby is not teething | modus tollen | The baby is teething | The baby is crying | The baby is not teething | The baby is not crying | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething then the baby is crying, and the baby is not crying, so the baby is not teething.```<|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 the cat is purring contentedly, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, so the cat is purring contentedly. | If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the cat is purring contentedly | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | The cat is purring contentedly | modus ponen | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | The cat is purring contentedly | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | The cat is not purring contentedly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder then the cat is purring contentedly, and a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, so the cat is purring contentedly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, therefore the baby is not crawling. | If the baby is crawling then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | Detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The baby is not crawling | modus tollen | The baby is crawling | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | The baby is not crawling | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling then detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, and detective patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, therefore the baby is not crawling.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, therefore a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder. | If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | modus ponen | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, therefore a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, since if emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal and laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal. | If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | modus tollen | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | 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: ```Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, since if emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal and laura's bank account did not have 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 recently purchased a firearm then the computer is on, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, hence the computer is on. | If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then the computer is on | John davis had recently purchased a firearm | The computer is on | modus ponen | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | The computer is on | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | The computer is not on | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had recently purchased a firearm then the computer is on, and john davis had recently purchased a firearm, hence the computer is on.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the car is moving, and the car is not moving, hence richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles. | If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the car is moving | The car is not moving | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | modus tollen | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | The car is moving | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | The car is not moving | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the car is moving, and the car is not moving, hence richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles.```<|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 hearing glass breaking at night then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a neighbor did not hear a gunshot, which establishes that no neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night. | If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then a neighbor heard a gunshot | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | A neighbor heard a gunshot | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | 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: ```If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and a neighbor did not hear a gunshot, which establishes that no neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, which shows that the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim. | If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | modus ponen | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, which shows that the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, as if the sun is setting slowly then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep and the sun is setting slowly. | If the sun is setting slowly then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | The sun is setting slowly | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | modus ponen | The sun is setting slowly | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | The sun is not setting slowly | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, as if the sun is setting slowly then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep and the sun is setting slowly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the door then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, thus the dog is not barking at the door. | If the dog is barking at the door then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past | John davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | The dog is not barking at the door | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the door | John Davis had a restraining order violation in the past | The dog is not barking at the door | John Davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the door then john davis had a restraining order violation in the past, and john davis did not have a restraining order violation in the past, thus the dog is not barking at the door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, since if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby. | If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | modus ponen | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | Laura's neighbor did not see a strange car parked in her driveway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway, since if officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then laura's neighbor saw a strange car parked in her driveway and 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 murder weapon was a baseball bat then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, which shows that sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily. | If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | modus ponen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and the murder weapon was a baseball bat, which shows that sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not a collection of short stories, as if the book is a collection of short stories then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment and the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment. | If the book is a collection of short stories then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | The book is not a collection of short stories | modus tollen | The book is a collection of short stories | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The book is not a collection of short stories | The victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not a collection of short stories, as if the book is a collection of short stories then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment and the victim's car keys were not missing from their apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, and no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, hence no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | modus tollen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, and no fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, hence no security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, which implies that the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary. | If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | modus tollen | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, and the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, which implies that the victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents, thus the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted. | If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | John davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | modus tollen | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, and john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents, thus the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted.```<|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 insurance policy had recently been increased, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | modus ponen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder | The jewelry store's insurance policy had not recently been increased | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased, since if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder then the jewelry store's insurance policy had recently been increased and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect arguing with the victim on the day of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, so a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument. | If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | modus ponen | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | A neighbor reported hearing a loud argument | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | A neighbor did not report hearing a loud argument | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's dog was found locked in a closet then a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument, and laura's dog was found locked in a closet, so a neighbor reported hearing a loud argument.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking at the neighbors, as if a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the dog is barking at the neighbors and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the dog is barking at the neighbors | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The dog is barking at the neighbors | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The dog is barking at the neighbors | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is barking at the neighbors, as if a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the dog is barking at the neighbors and a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene 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, thus footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene. | If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene 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 | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | modus tollen | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene 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, thus footprints matching john's shoes were not found near 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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, so the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder. | If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | modus ponen | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | 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 handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the suspect's phone records placed them near the crime scene at the time of the murder, and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, so 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 laura's laptop was found smashed then the dog is barking loudly, and the dog is not barking loudly, which implies that laura's laptop was not found smashed. | If laura's laptop was found smashed then the dog is barking loudly | The dog is not barking loudly | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | modus tollen | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The dog is barking loudly | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | The dog is not barking loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's laptop was found smashed then the dog is barking loudly, and the dog is not barking loudly, which implies that laura's laptop was not found smashed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, since if the baby is teething on a toy then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox and the baby is teething on a toy. | If the baby is teething on a toy then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox | The baby is teething on a toy | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | modus ponen | The baby is teething on a toy | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | The baby is not teething on a toy | 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: ```A handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, since if the baby is teething on a toy then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox and the baby is teething on a toy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then the car is a sedan, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, so the car is a sedan. | If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then the car is a sedan | John davis had scratches on his arms and neck | The car is a sedan | modus ponen | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | The car is a sedan | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | The car is not a sedan | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then the car is a sedan, and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, so the car is a sedan.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, because if surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery. | If surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | Surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the 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 camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene, because if surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery then a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene and surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the cat then the car is moving, and the car is not moving, which implies that the baby is not crawling towards the cat. | If the baby is crawling towards the cat then the car is moving | The car is not moving | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the cat | The car is moving | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | The car is not moving | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the cat then the car is moving, and the car is not moving, which implies that the baby is not crawling towards the cat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, since if emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop and laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop. | If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | modus tollen | Emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder, since if emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop and laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop.```<|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 changed the locks on their doors then the sun is setting slowly, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, which shows that the sun is setting slowly. | If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the sun is setting slowly | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The sun is setting slowly | modus ponen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | The sun is setting slowly | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | The sun is not setting slowly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then the sun is setting slowly, and the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors, which shows that the sun is setting slowly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, thus a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle. | If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | modus tollen | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, thus a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, hence the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors. | If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed the locks on their doors | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed the locks on their doors then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, hence the victim had not recently changed the locks on their doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, which implies that a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene. | If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | modus ponen | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, which implies that a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had installed a home security system then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, therefore laura had not installed a home security system. | If laura had installed a home security system then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | John davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | Laura had not installed a home security system | modus tollen | Laura had installed a home security system | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | Laura had not installed a home security system | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had installed a home security system then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, therefore 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 richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, which implies that richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account. | If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | modus tollen | Richard Anderson had a secret offshore bank account | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Richard Anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a secret offshore bank account then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions, and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions, which implies that richard anderson did not have a secret offshore bank account.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the bird is singing, and the bird is not singing, which establishes that the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity. | If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the bird is singing | The bird is not singing | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | modus tollen | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | The bird is singing | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | The bird is not singing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the bird is singing, and the bird is not singing, which establishes that the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not sleeping in the sun, since if the cat is sleeping in the sun then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery and richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery. | If the cat is sleeping in the sun then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery | Richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping in the sun | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is not sleeping in the sun, since if the cat is sleeping in the sun then richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery and richard anderson's business partner, james, did not have a motive for the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, so it can be concluded that no 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 sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | modus tollen | A witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | No witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness remembered hearing a gunshot in the early hours of the morning then sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house, and sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house, so it can be concluded that no 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 detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, which implies that detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement. | If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | modus tollen | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, which implies that detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of stalking laura then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and john davis had a history of stalking laura, thus the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact. | If john davis had a history of stalking laura then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | John davis had a history of stalking laura | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | modus ponen | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | The victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | The victim's office safe had not been tampered with, and its contents remained intact | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of stalking laura then the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but its contents remained intact, and john davis had a history of stalking laura, thus the victim's office safe had been tampered with, but 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|>
|
It is raining today, since if the movie is a family film then it is raining today and the movie is a family film. | If the movie is a family film then it is raining today | The movie is a family film | It is raining today | modus ponen | The movie is a family film | It is raining today | The movie is not a family film | It is not raining today | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```It is raining today, since if the movie is a family film then it is raining today and the movie is a family film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, hence a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet. | If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | modus ponen | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, hence a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly overhead then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and the sun is shining brightly overhead, hence officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The sun is shining brightly overhead | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | modus ponen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | Officer Jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | Officer Jackson did not notice fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly overhead then officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene, and the sun is shining brightly overhead, hence officer jackson noticed fresh tire tracks leading away from the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a mystery novel then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and the book is a mystery novel, which shows that a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder. | If the book is a mystery novel then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | The book is a mystery novel | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | modus ponen | The book is a mystery novel | A toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | The book is not a mystery novel | A toxicology report did not reveal the victim had been drugged prior to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a mystery novel then a toxicology report revealed the victim had been drugged prior to the murder, and the book is a mystery novel, which shows that a toxicology report revealed 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|>
|
A bloody footprint was found in the living room, since if john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents. | If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a bloody footprint was found in the living room | John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus ponen | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A bloody footprint was found in the living room, since if john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a bloody footprint was found in the living room and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and john davis had not recently purchased a firearm, which implies that no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then john davis had recently purchased a firearm | John davis had not recently purchased a firearm | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | modus tollen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | John Davis had recently purchased a firearm | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | John Davis had not recently purchased a firearm | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then john davis had recently purchased a firearm, and john davis had not recently purchased a firearm, which implies that no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | modus ponen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace | 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: ```Detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement, as if a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace then detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect near the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, as if the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the baby is crawling towards the door and the baby is not crawling towards the door. | If the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the baby is crawling towards the door | The baby is not crawling towards the door | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | modus tollen | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The baby is crawling towards the door | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | The baby is not crawling towards the door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, as if the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident then the baby is crawling towards the door and the baby is not crawling towards the door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the baby is teething, therefore the dog is barking at the neighbors. | If the baby is teething then the dog is barking at the neighbors | The baby is teething | The dog is barking at the neighbors | modus ponen | The baby is teething | The dog is barking at the neighbors | The baby is not teething | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething then the dog is barking at the neighbors, and the baby is teething, therefore the dog is barking at the neighbors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, which shows that a broken chair was found in the kitchen. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then a broken chair was found in the kitchen | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | modus ponen | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, which shows that a broken chair was found in the kitchen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, since if emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information and the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information. | If emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | modus tollen | Emily's co-worker, Greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | Emily's co-worker, Greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's co-worker, greg, did not report her acting nervously on the day of the robbery, since if emily's co-worker, greg, reported her acting nervously on the day of the robbery then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information and the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, because if laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone. | If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | modus ponen | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, because if laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster and laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is shedding leaves then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, so the tree is not shedding leaves. | If the tree is shedding leaves then the sun is setting slowly in the sky | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | The tree is not shedding leaves | modus tollen | The tree is shedding leaves | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The tree is not shedding leaves | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is shedding leaves then the sun is setting slowly in the sky, and the sun is not setting slowly in the sky, so the tree is not shedding leaves.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis has a history of violent behavior then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, which implies that a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine. | If john davis has a history of violent behavior then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine | John davis has a history of violent behavior | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | modus ponen | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis has a history of violent behavior then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, which implies that a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so it can be concluded that a neighbor heard a gunshot. | If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then a neighbor heard a gunshot | Detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | A neighbor heard a gunshot | modus ponen | Detective Patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | A neighbor heard a gunshot | Detective Patel did not find a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park | 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: ```If detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park then a neighbor heard a gunshot, and detective patel found a bag of stolen jewels hidden in a public park, so it can be concluded that a neighbor heard a gunshot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying loudly then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and the baby is crying loudly, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime. | If the baby is crying loudly then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The baby is crying loudly | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | modus ponen | The baby is crying loudly | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The baby is not crying loudly | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying loudly then surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, and the baby is crying loudly, so it can be concluded that surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, as if the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing. | If the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | modus tollen | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | Forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | Forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, as if the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m then forensic analysis revealed gunshot residue on the victim's clothing and forensic analysis did not reveal gunshot residue on the victim's clothing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, therefore the sun is not shining brightly. | If the sun is shining brightly then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The sun is not shining brightly | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The sun is not shining brightly | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, and a neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, therefore the sun is not shining brightly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis has a history of violent behavior then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, which establishes that the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim. | If john davis has a history of violent behavior then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | John davis has a history of violent behavior | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | modus ponen | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis has a history of violent behavior then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, which establishes that the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, since if laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep and laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident. | If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | modus ponen | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, since if laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep and laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, which shows that the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed. | If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | modus tollen | The cat is sleeping soundly on the bed | The suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident | The cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed | The suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is sleeping soundly on the bed then the suspect's alibi is he was at work during the incident, and the suspect's alibi is not that he was at work during the incident, which shows that the cat is not sleeping soundly on the bed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, which establishes that no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | Sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend'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 a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then sarah's missing engagement ring was later found at her ex-boyfriend's house, and sarah's missing engagement ring was not found at her ex-boyfriend's house, which establishes that no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, therefore a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine. | If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine | John davis was in possession of laura's personal documents | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | modus ponen | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents, therefore a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the car is parked on the street, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, thus the car is parked on the street. | If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the car is parked on the street | Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The car is parked on the street | modus ponen | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The car is parked on the street | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | The car is not parked on the street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then the car is parked on the street, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, thus the car is parked on the street.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, so it can be concluded that the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker. | If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | modus ponen | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | 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 note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, so it can be concluded that the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years, as if laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john. | If laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | modus ponen | Laura's diary contains mentions of threats from John | The victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years | Laura's diary does not contain mentions of threats from John | The victim's family had not been estranged from the suspect for years | 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 family had been estranged from the suspect for years, as if laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john then the victim's family had been estranged from the suspect for years and laura's diary contains mentions of threats from john.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, so it can be concluded that sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing. | If sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | modus tollen | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching 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 sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, and the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon, so it can be concluded 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 the baby is crawling towards the cat then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, and no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, which shows that the baby is not crawling towards the cat. | If the baby is crawling towards the cat then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the cat | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the cat then a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, and no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, which shows that the baby is not crawling towards the cat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, therefore john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit. | If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | modus ponen | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | 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 suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit, and the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country, therefore 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 dog is barking then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and the dog is barking, hence a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene. | If the dog is barking then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The dog is barking | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | modus ponen | The dog is barking | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The dog is not barking | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and the dog is barking, hence a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Officer brown discovered a hidden basement, since if a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then officer brown discovered a hidden basement and a broken window was found in laura's bedroom. | If a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then officer brown discovered a hidden basement | A broken window was found in laura's bedroom | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | modus ponen | A broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | Officer Brown discovered a hidden basement | No broken window was found in Laura's bedroom | Officer Brown did not discover a hidden basement | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Officer brown discovered a hidden basement, since if a broken window was found in laura's bedroom then officer brown discovered a hidden basement and a broken window was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, which shows that a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | modus ponen | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the stolen van was registered in a fake name then a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence, and the stolen van was registered in a fake name, which shows that a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the baby is playing with a toy car, and the baby is not playing with a toy car, which establishes that detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects. | If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the baby is playing with a toy car | The baby is not playing with a toy car | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | modus tollen | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | The baby is playing with a toy car | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | The baby is not playing with a toy car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then the baby is playing with a toy car, and the baby is not playing with a toy car, which establishes that detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects.```<|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 security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, thus a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property. | If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | modus ponen | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | 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 a broken chair was found in the kitchen then a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, thus a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, hence detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement. | If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | Detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | modus tollen | Detective Bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | Detective Bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective bennett discovered a hidden safe in the store's basement then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and detective hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, hence detective bennett did not discover a hidden safe in the store's basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data, so the suspect had no history of mental health issues. | If the suspect had a history of mental health issues then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of mental health issues | The victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data | The suspect had no history of mental health issues | 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 had a history of mental health issues then the victim's missing laptop contained confidential company data, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain confidential company data, so the suspect had no history of mental health issues.```<|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, because if the book is on the nightstand then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store and officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store. | If the book is on the nightstand then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | Officer smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | The book is not on the nightstand | modus tollen | The book is on the nightstand | Officer Smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store | The book is not on the nightstand | Officer Smith did not discover a broken window at the jewelry store | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not on the nightstand, because if the book is on the nightstand then officer smith discovered a broken window at the jewelry store and officer smith did not discover 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|>
|
The baby is not teething, since if the baby is teething then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery and surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery. | If the baby is teething then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The baby is not teething | modus tollen | The baby is teething | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The baby is not teething | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not teething, since if the baby is teething then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery and surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not purring contentedly, since if the cat is purring contentedly then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask. | If the cat is purring contentedly then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The cat is not purring contentedly | modus tollen | The cat is purring contentedly | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The cat is not purring contentedly | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is not purring contentedly, since if the cat is purring contentedly then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask and emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the weather is cloudy and rainy then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, and the weather is cloudy and rainy, hence a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car. | If the weather is cloudy and rainy then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car | The weather is cloudy and rainy | A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | modus ponen | The weather is cloudy and rainy | A bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | No bloody shirt was found in John Davis's car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the weather is cloudy and rainy then a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car, and the weather is cloudy and rainy, hence a bloody shirt was found in john davis's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crying in the car then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, which shows that the baby is not crying in the car. | If the baby is crying in the car then the cat is grooming itself | The cat is not grooming itself | The baby is not crying in the car | modus tollen | The baby is crying in the car | The cat is grooming itself | The baby is not crying in the car | The cat is not grooming itself | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying in the car then the cat is grooming itself, and the cat is not grooming itself, which shows that the baby is not crying in the car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a biography then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, and the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns, therefore the book is not a biography. | If the book is a biography then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The book is not a biography | modus tollen | The book is a biography | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The book is not a biography | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | 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 biography then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, and the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns, therefore the book is not a biography.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, because if detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house and no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house. | If detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | modus tollen | Detective Parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | Detective Parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective parker did not receive an anonymous tip about the suspects, because if detective parker received an anonymous tip about the suspects then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house and 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|>
|
Laura's wedding ring is missing, since if a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then laura's wedding ring is missing and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home. | If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then laura's wedding ring is missing | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | Laura's wedding ring is missing | modus ponen | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | Laura's wedding ring is missing | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's wedding ring is missing, since if a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then laura's wedding ring is missing and a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, because if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | modus ponen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home, because if a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's house was booby-trapped then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, which establishes that laura's house was not booby-trapped. | If laura's house was booby-trapped then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | modus tollen | Laura's house was booby-trapped | A bloody glove was discovered in the backyard | Laura's house was not booby-trapped | A bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's house was booby-trapped then a bloody glove was discovered in the backyard, and a bloody glove was not discovered in the backyard, which establishes that 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 laura's mail was tampered with then it is raining today, and it is not raining today, thus laura's mail was not tampered with. | If laura's mail was tampered with then it is raining today | It is not raining today | Laura's mail was not tampered with | modus tollen | Laura's mail was tampered with | It is raining today | Laura's mail was not tampered with | It is not raining today | 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 mail was tampered with then it is raining today, and it is not raining today, thus laura's mail was not tampered with.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the book is a mystery novel, and the book is not a mystery novel, which establishes that a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar. | If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the book is a mystery novel | The book is not a mystery novel | A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar | modus tollen | A fingerprint matching Marcus was found on the crowbar | The book is a mystery novel | A fingerprint matching Marcus was not found on the crowbar | The book is not a mystery novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a fingerprint matching marcus was found on the crowbar then the book is a mystery novel, and the book is not a mystery novel, which establishes that a fingerprint matching marcus was not found on the crowbar.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor heard a gunshot, because if the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then a neighbor heard a gunshot and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim. | If the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then a neighbor heard a gunshot | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | A neighbor heard a gunshot | modus ponen | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | A neighbor heard a gunshot | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | 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, because if the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim then a neighbor heard a gunshot and the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a drama then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and the movie is a drama, which shows that the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery. | If the movie is a drama then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The movie is a drama | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | modus ponen | The movie is a drama | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The movie is not a drama | The security guard, Marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a drama then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and the movie is a drama, which shows that the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, and laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently, which establishes that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence. | If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | modus tollen | A forensic expert identified the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | A forensic expert did not identify the suspect's DNA on a piece of evidence | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a forensic expert identified the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, and laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently, which establishes that a forensic expert did not identify the suspect's dna on a piece of evidence.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is not eating food, as if the cat is eating food then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions. | If the cat is eating food then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | The cat is not eating food | modus tollen | The cat is eating food | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | The cat is not eating food | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is not eating food, as if the cat is eating food then laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions and laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the book is a biography, and the sun is shining brightly in the sky, so the book is a biography. | If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the book is a biography | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | The book is a biography | modus ponen | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | The book is a biography | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | The book is not a biography | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining brightly in the sky then the book is a biography, and the sun is shining brightly in the sky, so the book is a biography.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The cat is purring contentedly, because if a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the cat is purring contentedly and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace. | If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the cat is purring contentedly | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The cat is purring contentedly | modus ponen | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The cat is purring contentedly | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | The cat is not purring contentedly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The cat is purring contentedly, because if a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the cat is purring contentedly and a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace.```<|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 neighbors then cats are mammals, and the dog is barking at the neighbors, which implies that cats are mammals. | If the dog is barking at the neighbors then cats are mammals | The dog is barking at the neighbors | Cats are mammals | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the neighbors | Cats are mammals | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | Cats are not mammals | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the neighbors then cats are mammals, and the dog is barking at the neighbors, which implies that cats are mammals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, since if john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then john davis had a history of identity theft and john davis did not have a history of identity theft. | If john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then john davis had a history of identity theft | John davis did not have a history of identity theft | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | modus tollen | John Davis was caught on camera buying duct tape | John Davis had a history of identity theft | John Davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis was not caught on camera buying duct tape, since if john davis was caught on camera buying duct tape then john davis had a history of identity theft and john davis did not have a history of identity theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, since if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park. | If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | Laura's family did not report receiving anonymous threats | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats, since if a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then laura's family reported receiving anonymous threats and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is not teething on a toy, because if the baby is teething on a toy then john davis had a history of anger management issues and john davis did not have a history of anger management issues. | If the baby is teething on a toy then john davis had a history of anger management issues | John davis did not have a history of anger management issues | The baby is not teething on a toy | modus tollen | The baby is teething on a toy | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | The baby is not teething on a toy | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The baby is not teething on a toy, because if the baby is teething on a toy then john davis had a history of anger management issues and john davis did not have a history of anger management issues.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the phone is ringing then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, and the phone is ringing, which implies that a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door. | If the phone is ringing then a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door | The phone is ringing | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | modus ponen | The phone is ringing | A bloody handprint was found on Sarah's car door | The phone is not ringing | A bloody handprint was not found on Sarah's car door | 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 bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door, and the phone is ringing, which implies that a bloody handprint was found on sarah's car door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.