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 john davis has a history of violent behavior then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, which shows that emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers. | If john davis has a history of violent behavior then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | John davis has a history of violent behavior | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | modus ponen | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | Emily did not have a history of confrontations with her co-workers | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis has a history of violent behavior then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, and john davis has a history of violent behavior, which shows that emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, which establishes that john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents. | If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | modus tollen | John Davis was in possession of Laura's personal documents | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | John Davis was not in possession of Laura's personal documents | No security camera captured footage of the suspect 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: ```If john davis was in possession of laura's personal documents then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, and no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, which establishes that john davis was not in possession of laura's personal documents.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, so surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery. | If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | modus ponen | The victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | The victim's computer had not been wiped clean of all data | Surveillance footage does not show Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and the victim's computer had been wiped clean of all data, so 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 a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, so no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene. | If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | modus tollen | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene then the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, and the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, so no hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining through the window then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, and the sun is shining through the window, therefore the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. | If the sun is shining through the window then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The sun is shining through the window | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | modus ponen | The sun is shining through the window | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The sun is not shining through the window | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is shining through the window then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, and the sun is shining through the window, therefore the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, which implies that emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate. | If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | A threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | modus ponen | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, which implies that emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, which establishes that a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene. | If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | modus tollen | A security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | A security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured a man wearing a clown mask fleeing the scene then the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, and the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery, which establishes that a security camera did not capture a man wearing a clown mask 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 officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, which establishes that the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery. | If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | Officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | modus ponen | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | 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 officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby, which establishes 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 the car is a sedan then the book is a romance novel, and the book is not a romance novel, which implies that the car is not a sedan. | If the car is a sedan then the book is a romance novel | The book is not a romance novel | The car is not a sedan | modus tollen | The car is a sedan | The book is a romance novel | The car is not a sedan | The book is not a romance novel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is a sedan then the book is a romance novel, and the book is not a romance novel, which implies that the car is not a sedan.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is purring then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the cat is purring, so the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause. | If the cat is purring then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | The cat is purring | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | modus ponen | The cat is purring | The victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause | The cat is not purring | The victim's life insurance policy did not have a double indemnity clause | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is purring then the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause, and the cat is purring, so the victim's life insurance policy had a double indemnity clause.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is barking at the stranger, since if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the dog is barking at the stranger and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox. | If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the dog is barking at the stranger | A handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox | The dog is barking at the stranger | modus ponen | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | The dog is barking at the stranger | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | The dog is not barking at the stranger | 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 stranger, since if a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the dog is barking at the stranger and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard, because if the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park and no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park. | If the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | No witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | modus tollen | The victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's pet dog was not found unharmed in the backyard, because if the victim's pet dog was found unharmed in the backyard then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park and no 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|>
|
If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, hence the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror. | If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | modus ponen | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, and the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, hence the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, therefore a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror. | If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror | A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | A threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | No threatening message was written on Laura's bathroom mirror | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, therefore a threatening message was written on laura's bathroom mirror.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, hence laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident. | If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | A handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | modus ponen | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, and a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, hence laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, because if the sky is blue then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment and the sky is blue. | If the sky is blue then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The sky is blue | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | modus ponen | The sky is blue | The victim's car keys were missing from their apartment | The sky is not blue | 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 victim's car keys were missing from their apartment, because if the sky is blue then the victim's car keys were missing from their apartment and the sky is blue.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, and emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, so the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect. | If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | modus tollen | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, and emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout, so the victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the baby is not drinking from a bottle, which shows that no handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet. | If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the baby is drinking from a bottle | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | modus tollen | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The baby is drinking from a bottle | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the baby is drinking from a bottle, and the baby is not drinking from a bottle, which shows that no 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 baby is crying then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, and no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, thus the baby is not crying. | If the baby is crying then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom | The baby is not crying | modus tollen | The baby is crying | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | The baby is not crying | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crying then a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, and no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, thus the baby is not crying.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft, which establishes that detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter. | If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | modus tollen | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter then emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft, and emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft, which establishes that detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, and the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number, so it can be concluded that the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery. | If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | modus tollen | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number, and the victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number, so it can be concluded that the store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then laura's laptop was found smashed, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which shows that laura's laptop was found smashed. | If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then laura's laptop was found smashed | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | Laura's laptop was found smashed | modus ponen | The victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The victim did not have a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary then laura's laptop was found smashed, and the victim had a life insurance policy with the suspect as the beneficiary, which shows that laura's laptop was found smashed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, therefore no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus tollen | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | A stolen car was not reported 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 a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, therefore no homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which shows that a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene. | If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | A homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | modus ponen | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | A hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | No hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence at the crime scene, and a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, which shows that a hidden camera caught the suspect planting evidence 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 sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which establishes that sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house. | If sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then the stolen van was registered in a fake name | The stolen van was not registered in a fake name | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | modus tollen | Sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house | The stolen van was registered in a fake name | Sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house | 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 sarah's cat was found abandoned outside her house then the stolen van was registered in a fake name, and the stolen van was not registered in a fake name, which establishes that sarah's cat was not found abandoned outside her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, so no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry. | If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | modus tollen | A witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | No witness saw John Davis leaving the scene in a hurry | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and no bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, so no witness saw john davis leaving the scene in a hurry.```<|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 sky is blue then the apple is red, and the sky is blue, which establishes that the apple is red. | If the sky is blue then the apple is red | The sky is blue | The apple is red | modus ponen | The sky is blue | The apple is red | The sky is not blue | The apple is not red | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sky is blue then the apple is red, and the sky is blue, which establishes that the apple is red.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the baby is sleeping, and the baby is not sleeping, which shows that no bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the baby is sleeping | The baby is not sleeping | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus tollen | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | The baby is sleeping | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | The baby is not sleeping | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody footprint was found in the living room then the baby is sleeping, and the baby is not sleeping, which shows that no bloody footprint was found in the living room.```<|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 a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, thus a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby. | If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | modus ponen | Officer Turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | A bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | Officer Turner did not find a bloody glove in the alley behind the store | No bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store then a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby, and officer turner found a bloody glove in the alley behind the store, thus a bloody shirt was discovered in a dumpster nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, and a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, which establishes that the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror. | If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | modus ponen | A homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | A homeless shelter did not report an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned then the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, and a homeless shelter reported an increase in stolen jewelry being pawned, which establishes that the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which establishes that laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van. | If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | modus ponen | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van, and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, which establishes that laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, so it can be concluded that laura's phone records do not show calls to 911. | If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the baby is crawling | The baby is not crawling | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | modus tollen | Laura's phone records show calls to 911 | The baby is crawling | Laura's phone records do not show calls to 911 | The baby is not crawling | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's phone records show calls to 911 then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, so it can be concluded that laura's phone records do not show calls to 911.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and the book is written by a famous author, therefore a witness heard screams coming from laura's house. | If the book is written by a famous author then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house | The book is written by a famous author | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | modus ponen | The book is written by a famous author | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | The book is not written by a famous author | No witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and the book is written by a famous author, therefore a witness heard screams coming from laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, which shows that officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby. | If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | modus tollen | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and no homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, which shows that officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, which establishes that the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker. | If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | modus ponen | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | The victim's diary did not contain entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker, and the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, which establishes that the victim's diary contained entries detailing their fear of an unknown stalker.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, so a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home. | If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | modus ponen | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | A map with the jewelry store's layout was found in Emily's home | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | A map with the jewelry store's layout was not found in Emily's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, so a map with the jewelry store's layout was found in emily's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the baby is crying in the car, and the baby is not crying in the car, thus a neighbor did not hear a gunshot. | If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the baby is crying in the car | The baby is not crying in the car | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | modus tollen | A neighbor heard a gunshot | The baby is crying in the car | A neighbor did not hear a gunshot | The baby is not crying in the car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor heard a gunshot then the baby is crying in the car, and the baby is not crying in the car, thus a neighbor did not hear a gunshot.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's pet cat is missing then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, and laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, hence laura's pet cat is not missing. | If laura's pet cat is missing then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | Laura's pet cat is not missing | modus tollen | Laura's pet cat is missing | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | Laura's pet cat is not missing | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's pet cat is missing then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, and laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, hence laura's pet cat is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, hence laura had a secret storage room in her house. | If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then laura had a secret storage room in her house | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then laura had a secret storage room in her house, and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment, hence laura had a secret storage room in her house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the dog is barking at the stranger, and the dog is not barking at the stranger, which shows that the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals. | If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the dog is barking at the stranger | The dog is not barking at the stranger | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | modus tollen | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | The dog is barking at the stranger | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | The dog is not barking at the stranger | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals then the dog is barking at the stranger, and the dog is not barking at the stranger, which shows that the suspect had no history of violence against other individuals.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If it is raining today then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and john davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck, so it can be concluded that it is not raining today. | If it is raining today then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck | John davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | It is not raining today | modus tollen | It is raining today | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | It is not raining today | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If it is raining today then john davis had scratches on his arms and neck, and john davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck, so it can be concluded that it is not raining today.```<|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 will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, as if the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation. | If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | modus ponen | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, as if the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a thriller then the cat is purring loudly, and the movie is a thriller, which shows that the cat is purring loudly. | If the movie is a thriller then the cat is purring loudly | The movie is a thriller | The cat is purring loudly | modus ponen | The movie is a thriller | The cat is purring loudly | The movie is not a thriller | The cat is not purring loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a thriller then the cat is purring loudly, and the movie is a thriller, which shows that the cat is purring loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a drama, since if the movie is a drama then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim and the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim. | If the movie is a drama then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The movie is not a drama | modus tollen | The movie is a drama | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The movie is not a drama | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The movie is not a drama, since if the movie is a drama then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim and the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis has a history of violent behavior then laura's passport is missing, and laura's passport is not missing, which establishes that john davis does not have a history of violent behavior. | If john davis has a history of violent behavior then laura's passport is missing | Laura's passport is not missing | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | modus tollen | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | Laura's passport is missing | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | Laura's passport is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis has a history of violent behavior then laura's passport is missing, and laura's passport is not missing, which establishes that john davis does not have a history of violent behavior.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a mystery novel then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, and the book is a mystery novel, so it can be concluded that a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect. | If the book is a mystery novel then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | The book is a mystery novel | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | modus ponen | The book is a mystery novel | A fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect | The book is not a mystery novel | A fingerprint on the murder weapon does not match the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is a mystery novel then a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect, and the book is a mystery novel, so it can be concluded that a fingerprint on the murder weapon matches the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone, which establishes that the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization. | If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | modus tollen | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone, and laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone, which establishes that the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is crawling towards the door then the movie is a drama, and the movie is not a drama, thus the baby is not crawling towards the door. | If the baby is crawling towards the door then the movie is a drama | The movie is not a drama | The baby is not crawling towards the door | modus tollen | The baby is crawling towards the door | The movie is a drama | The baby is not crawling towards the door | The movie is not a drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is crawling towards the door then the movie is a drama, and the movie is not a drama, thus 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 emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, so emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder. | If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | 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 | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | Emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder | The jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's car was seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and the jewelry store had not been burglarized once before, five years ago, so emily's car was not seen leaving the crime scene shortly after the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, so it can be concluded that no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom. | If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | modus tollen | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | The victim had a restraining order against the suspect | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | The victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom then the victim had a restraining order against the suspect, and the victim did not have a restraining order against the suspect, so it can be concluded that no hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, which shows that sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death. | If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | modus ponen | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a broken chair was found in the kitchen then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, and a broken chair was found in the kitchen, which shows that sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, as if the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user. | If the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | modus ponen | The victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | The victim's social media accounts did not contain threats from an anonymous user | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, as if the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene and the victim's social media accounts contained threats from an anonymous user.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is drinking from a bottle then the baby is teething, and the baby is drinking from a bottle, so the baby is teething. | If the baby is drinking from a bottle then the baby is teething | The baby is drinking from a bottle | The baby is teething | modus ponen | The baby is drinking from a bottle | The baby is teething | The baby is not drinking from a bottle | The baby is not teething | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is drinking from a bottle then the baby is teething, and the baby is drinking from a bottle, so the baby is teething.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The phone is ringing, as if the baby is playing with toys then the phone is ringing and the baby is playing with toys. | If the baby is playing with toys then the phone is ringing | The baby is playing with toys | The phone is ringing | modus ponen | The baby is playing with toys | The phone is ringing | The baby is not playing with toys | The phone is not ringing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The phone is ringing, as if the baby is playing with toys then the phone is ringing and the baby is playing with toys.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had installed a home security system then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, so laura had not installed a home security system. | If laura had installed a home security system then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | No witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | Laura had not installed a home security system | modus tollen | Laura had installed a home security system | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | Laura had not installed a home security system | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had installed a home security system then a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, and no witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, so 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 the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the car is a hybrid, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, hence the car is a hybrid. | If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the car is a hybrid | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The car is a hybrid | modus ponen | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The car is a hybrid | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | The car is not a hybrid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then the car is a hybrid, and the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions, hence the car is a hybrid.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then the book is on the nightstand, and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, which shows that the book is on the nightstand. | If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then the book is on the nightstand | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | The book is on the nightstand | modus ponen | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | The book is on the nightstand | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | The book is not on the nightstand | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway then the book is on the nightstand, and a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, which shows that the book is on the nightstand.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The dog is happy, since if a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the dog is happy and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement. | If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the dog is happy | A local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement | The dog is happy | modus ponen | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | The dog is happy | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | The dog is not happy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The dog is happy, since if a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then the dog is happy and a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, thus laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident. | If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | modus tollen | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | Richard Anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | Richard Anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident then richard anderson's financial records revealed suspicious transactions, and richard anderson's financial records did not reveal suspicious transactions, thus laura's car was not 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 movie is a thriller then the baby is crying in the car, and the baby is not crying in the car, which establishes that the movie is not a thriller. | If the movie is a thriller then the baby is crying in the car | The baby is not crying in the car | The movie is not a thriller | modus tollen | The movie is a thriller | The baby is crying in the car | The movie is not a thriller | The baby is not crying in the car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a thriller then the baby is crying in the car, and the baby is not crying in the car, which establishes that the movie is not a thriller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then the baby is crying loudly, and the baby is not crying loudly, so it can be concluded that emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky. | If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then the baby is crying loudly | The baby is not crying loudly | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | modus tollen | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | The baby is crying loudly | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | The baby is not crying loudly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky then the baby is crying loudly, and the baby is not crying loudly, so it can be concluded that emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky.```<|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 victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, so no 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 the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | modus tollen | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and the victim's cellphone was not found in a nearby dumpster, so no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, which establishes that the dog is barking at the squirrel. | If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the dog is barking at the squirrel | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The dog is barking at the squirrel | modus ponen | The victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail | The dog is barking at the squirrel | The victim had not recently received threatening letters in the mail | The dog is not barking at the squirrel | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail then the dog is barking at the squirrel, and the victim had recently received threatening letters in the mail, which establishes that the dog is barking at the squirrel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, which implies that sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death. | If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | Sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | modus tollen | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | Sarah's blood was not found on Emily's clothing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, which implies that sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death.```<|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 passport is missing then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, thus laura's passport is not missing. | If laura's passport is missing then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | A stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene | Laura's passport is not missing | modus tollen | Laura's passport is missing | A stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene | Laura's passport is not missing | A stolen car was not found abandoned 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 laura's passport is missing then a stolen car was found abandoned near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not found abandoned near the crime scene, thus laura's passport is not missing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, so it can be concluded that the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead. | If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, so it can be concluded that the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead.```<|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 the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, so the dog is not barking at the door. | If the dog is barking at the door then the baby is crawling | The baby is not crawling | The dog is not barking at the door | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the door | The baby is crawling | The dog is not barking at the door | The baby is not crawling | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the door then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, so the dog is not barking at the door.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then the baby is playing with a toy car, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, so the baby is playing with a toy car. | If the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then the baby is playing with a toy car | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | The baby is playing with a toy car | modus ponen | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | The baby is playing with a toy car | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | 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 the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage then the baby is playing with a toy car, and the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, so the baby is playing with a toy car.```<|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 a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house and no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house. | If the book is on the nightstand then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | The book is not on the nightstand | modus tollen | The book is on the nightstand | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | The book is not on the nightstand | 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: ```The book is not on the nightstand, because if the book is on the nightstand 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|>
|
The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, since if richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk and richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery. | If richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | Richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | modus ponen | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, had a motive for the robbery | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | Richard Anderson's business partner, James, did not have a motive for the robbery | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, since if richard anderson's business partner, james, had a motive for the robbery then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk and richard anderson's business partner, james, had 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 the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, thus the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect. | If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | modus ponen | The store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The store's security system had not been tampered with before the robbery | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and the store's security system had been tampered with before the robbery, thus the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, which shows that officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby. | If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | modus tollen | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and no neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, which shows that officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and the dog is barking at the mailman, hence john davis had a history of stalking other women. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then john davis had a history of stalking other women | The dog is barking at the mailman | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the mailman | John Davis had a history of stalking other women | The dog is not barking at the mailman | John Davis did not have a history of stalking other women | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then john davis had a history of stalking other women, and the dog is barking at the mailman, hence john davis had a history of stalking other women.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, and emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, so the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization. | If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder | Emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | modus tollen | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, and emily was not seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, so the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, which establishes that sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily. | If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | A stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | modus ponen | A stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | No stolen necklace was found in Marcus's apartment | Sarah had not recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and a stolen necklace was found in marcus's apartment, which establishes 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|>
|
If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, therefore a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace. | If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | modus ponen | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace, and the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime, therefore a threatening letter was mailed to laura'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 a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, so a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house. | If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | modus ponen | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | No neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair then a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house, and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair, so a neighbor reported seeing a flickering light inside laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The book is not a mystery novel, since if the book is a mystery novel then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses. | If the book is a mystery novel then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | The book is not a mystery novel | modus tollen | The book is a mystery novel | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | The book is not a mystery novel | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The book is not a mystery novel, since if the book is a mystery novel then the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses and the suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the baby is sleeping, and the baby is not sleeping, thus laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors. | If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the baby is sleeping | The baby is not sleeping | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | modus tollen | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | The baby is sleeping | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | The baby is not sleeping | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura had recently changed the locks on her doors then the baby is sleeping, and the baby is not sleeping, thus laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The baby is crawling towards the door, because if john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the baby is crawling towards the door and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms. | If john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the baby is crawling towards the door | John davis had a cache of illegal firearms | The baby is crawling towards the door | modus ponen | John Davis had a cache of illegal firearms | The baby is crawling towards the door | John Davis did not have a cache of illegal firearms | 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 baby is crawling towards the door, because if john davis had a cache of illegal firearms then the baby is crawling towards the door and john davis had a cache of illegal firearms.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, which implies that a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office. | If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | modus ponen | Fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | A hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | No fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop | No hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop then a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office, and fingerprints belonging to an unknown individual were found on the victim's laptop, which implies that a hidden camera captured the suspect searching the victim's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a thriller then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, and the movie is a thriller, hence the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene. | If the movie is a thriller then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The movie is a thriller | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | modus ponen | The movie is a thriller | The suspect's DNA was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | The movie is not a thriller | The suspect's DNA was not found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a thriller then the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene, and the movie is a thriller, hence the suspect's dna was found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the stranger then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and the dog is barking at the stranger, which establishes that a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house. | If the dog is barking at the stranger then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | The dog is barking at the stranger | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the stranger | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | The dog is not barking at the stranger | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the stranger then a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, and the dog is barking at the stranger, which establishes that a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, thus 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 a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | 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 | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, thus 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|>
|
If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, hence a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession. | If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | modus ponen | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, and a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle, hence a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, which implies that sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy. | If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | modus ponen | The suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses | Sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | The suspect's alibi was not corroborated by several witnesses | Sarah had not recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses then sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy, and the suspect's alibi was corroborated by several witnesses, which implies that sarah had recently taken out a hefty life insurance policy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the television then the movie is exciting, and the movie is not exciting, which establishes that the dog is not barking at the television. | If the dog is barking at the television then the movie is exciting | The movie is not exciting | The dog is not barking at the television | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the television | The movie is exciting | The dog is not barking at the television | The movie is not exciting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the television then the movie is exciting, and the movie is not exciting, which establishes that the dog is not barking at the television.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, which shows that the suspect had a history of violence against the victim. | If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | modus ponen | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, and a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene, which shows that the suspect had a history of violence against 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 sun is setting then the phone is ringing, and the sun is setting, so it can be concluded that the phone is ringing. | If the sun is setting then the phone is ringing | The sun is setting | The phone is ringing | modus ponen | The sun is setting | The phone is ringing | The sun is not setting | The phone is not ringing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting then the phone is ringing, and the sun is setting, so it can be concluded that the phone is ringing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then the book is a bestseller, and the book is not a bestseller, so a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene. | If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then the book is a bestseller | The book is not a bestseller | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | modus tollen | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | The book is a bestseller | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | The book is not a bestseller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a stolen car was reported near the crime scene then the book is a bestseller, and the book is not a bestseller, so a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, therefore the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information. | If the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene | A stolen car was not reported near the crime scene | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | modus tollen | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | A stolen car was reported near the crime scene | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | A stolen car was not reported 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 victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information then a stolen car was reported near the crime scene, and a stolen car was not reported near the crime scene, therefore 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|>
|
If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, and the suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim, therefore the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization. | If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | modus tollen | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | The suspect had a history of violence against the victim | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | The suspect did not have a history of violence against 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 jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then the suspect had a history of violence against the victim, and the suspect did not have a history of violence against the victim, therefore the jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns, as if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the dog is barking loudly and the dog is not barking loudly. | If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the dog is barking loudly | The dog is not barking loudly | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The dog is barking loudly | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | 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: ```The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns, as if the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the dog is barking loudly and the dog is not barking loudly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, so no 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 the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | modus tollen | A handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | No handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, so no handwritten letter containing threats was discovered in the suspect's home.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, so it can be concluded that laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions. | If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then laura's dog was found locked in a closet | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | modus tollen | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | Laura's dog was not found locked in a closet | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and laura's dog was not found locked in a closet, so it can be concluded that 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 a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the computer is on, and the computer is not on, so a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox. | If a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the computer is on | The computer is not on | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | modus tollen | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | The computer is on | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | 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 a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox then the computer is on, and the computer is not on, so a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, and the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, which establishes that the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle. | If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | modus ponen | The cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | The cat is not grooming itself in front of the mirror | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, and the cat is grooming itself in front of the mirror, which establishes that the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, because if a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions and the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions. | If a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | modus tollen | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | No homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, because if a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings then the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions and the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, because if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement. | If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | modus ponen | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, because if the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle and the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, as if the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime and the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim. | If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | modus ponen | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime, as if the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime and 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|>
|
Subsets and Splits