Search is not available for this dataset
If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.
stringlengths 74
421
| If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
stringlengths 36
192
| Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 788
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street
stringclasses 788
values | modus ponen
stringclasses 2
values | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson occurred on Elm Street.1
stringclasses 394
values | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene
stringclasses 394
values | The arson did not occur on Elm Street
stringclasses 394
values | True
bool 1
class | text
stringlengths 453
800
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and john davis did not have a history of anger management issues, which establishes that a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not suspected of involvement. | If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then john davis had a history of anger management issues | John davis did not have a history of anger management issues | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | modus tollen | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is suspected of involvement | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | A local gang, known as the 'Crimson Snakes,' is not suspected of involvement | John Davis did not have a history of anger management issues | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is suspected of involvement then john davis had a history of anger management issues, and john davis did not have a history of anger management issues, which establishes that a local gang, known as the 'crimson snakes,' is not 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 the movie is a comedy then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and the movie is a comedy, so it can be concluded that emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask. | If the movie is a comedy then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The movie is a comedy | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | modus ponen | The movie is a comedy | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | The movie is not a comedy | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a comedy then emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask, and the movie is a comedy, so it can be concluded that emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, hence the sun is shining brightly in the sky. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the sun is shining brightly in the sky | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | modus ponen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The sun is shining brightly in the sky | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop | The sun is not shining brightly in the sky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop then the sun is shining brightly in the sky, and emily's fingerprints were found on the stolen jewels recovered from the pawn shop, hence the sun is shining brightly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The weather is not hot and humid, since if the weather is hot and humid then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene and no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene. | If the weather is hot and humid then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | No security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The weather is not hot and humid | modus tollen | The weather is hot and humid | A security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene | The weather is not hot and humid | 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: ```The weather is not hot and humid, since if the weather is hot and humid then a security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene and no security camera captured footage of the suspect fleeing the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the tree is shedding leaves then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and the tree is shedding leaves, which implies that john davis had a history of substance abuse. | If the tree is shedding leaves then john davis had a history of substance abuse | The tree is shedding leaves | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | modus ponen | The tree is shedding leaves | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | The tree is not shedding leaves | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the tree is shedding leaves then john davis had a history of substance abuse, and the tree is shedding leaves, which implies that john davis had a history of substance abuse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, and the dog is barking at the mailman, which shows that laura had a history of changing her locks frequently. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | The dog is barking at the mailman | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | modus ponen | The dog is barking at the mailman | Laura had a history of changing her locks frequently | The dog is not barking at the mailman | Laura did not have a history of changing her locks frequently | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then laura had a history of changing her locks frequently, and the dog is barking at the mailman, which shows that laura had a history of changing her locks frequently.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, and the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, which implies that surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | The suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | modus tollen | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the suspect had a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, and the suspect did not have a strong motive for wanting the victim dead, which implies that surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death, so surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store. | If surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death | Sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | modus tollen | Surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | Sarah's best friend, Lisa, was in financial distress before her death | Surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store | 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 surveillance footage shows a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store then sarah's best friend, lisa, was in financial distress before her death, and sarah's best friend, lisa, was not in financial distress before her death, so surveillance footage does not show a man with a distinctive scar on his face near the store.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, because if the weather is cloudy and rainy then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder and the weather is cloudy and rainy. | If the weather is cloudy and rainy then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The weather is cloudy and rainy | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | modus ponen | The weather is cloudy and rainy | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, because if the weather is cloudy and rainy then emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder and the weather is cloudy and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, therefore detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom. | If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | modus ponen | A restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | A restaurant receipt did not place the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and a restaurant receipt placed the suspect at a different location at the time of the murder, therefore detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, which implies that the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim. | If a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | A hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | modus ponen | A hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | No hidden cellar was discovered under Laura's house | 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 hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim, and a hidden cellar was discovered under laura's house, which implies that the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then john davis had a history of financial problems, and john davis did not have a history of financial problems, which implies that a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then john davis had a history of financial problems | John davis did not have a history of financial problems | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | modus tollen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | John Davis had a history of financial problems | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | John Davis did not have a history of financial problems | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then john davis had a history of financial problems, and john davis did not have a history of financial problems, which implies that a security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, hence the weather is cloudy and rainy. | If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the weather is cloudy and rainy | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The weather is cloudy and rainy | modus ponen | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The weather is cloudy and rainy | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, hence the weather is cloudy and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, thus witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist. | If witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing | Sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | modus tollen | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | Sarah's blood was found on Emily's clothing | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | 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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist then sarah's blood was found on emily's clothing, and sarah's blood was not found on emily's clothing, thus witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, because if laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns and laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van. | If laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | modus ponen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing a suspicious van | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns, because if laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van then the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns and laura's neighbors reported seeing a suspicious van.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, so it can be concluded that emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout. | If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | modus tollen | Emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | Emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's computer contained detailed plans of the jewelry store layout then a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, and no witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, so it can be concluded that emily's computer did not contain detailed plans of the jewelry store layout.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings. | If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings | A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | modus ponen | A forensic expert matched the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | A homeless man named Max had a photo of Sarah in his belongings | A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene | 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 a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that a homeless man named max had a photo of sarah in his belongings.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then laura's wedding ring is missing, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, thus laura's wedding ring is missing. | If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then laura's wedding ring is missing | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings | Laura's wedding ring is missing | modus ponen | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in Charlie's belongings | Laura's wedding ring is missing | A handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was not discovered in Charlie's belongings | Laura's wedding ring is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings then laura's wedding ring is missing, and a handwritten manifesto against the wealthy was discovered in charlie's belongings, thus laura's wedding ring is 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 officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, which implies that officer ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby. | If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the movie is a comedy-drama | The movie is not a comedy-drama | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | modus tollen | Officer Ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby | The movie is a comedy-drama | Officer Ramirez did not find a discarded crowbar nearby | The movie is not a comedy-drama | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If officer ramirez found a discarded crowbar nearby then the movie is a comedy-drama, and the movie is not a comedy-drama, which implies 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 emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then the dog is barking, and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, therefore the dog is barking. | If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then the dog is barking | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The dog is barking | modus ponen | Emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The dog is barking | Emily's bank records do not show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder | The dog is not barking | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder then the dog is barking, and emily's bank records show large cash withdrawals leading up to the murder, therefore the dog is barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the bird is singing then the weather is cold and rainy, and the weather is not cold and rainy, hence the bird is not singing. | If the bird is singing then the weather is cold and rainy | The weather is not cold and rainy | The bird is not singing | modus tollen | The bird is singing | The weather is cold and rainy | The bird is not singing | The weather is not cold and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the bird is singing then the weather is cold and rainy, and the weather is not cold and rainy, hence the bird is not singing.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a secret storage unit, because if john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then john davis had a secret storage unit and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck. | If john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then john davis had a secret storage unit | John davis had scratches on his arms and neck | John Davis had a secret storage unit | modus ponen | John Davis had scratches on his arms and neck | John Davis had a secret storage unit | John Davis did not have scratches on his arms and neck | John Davis did not have a secret storage unit | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a secret storage unit, because if john davis had scratches on his arms and neck then john davis had a secret storage unit and john davis had scratches on his arms and neck.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, which establishes that the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago. | If a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | modus ponen | A handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | The jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago | No handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet | 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 a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet then the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago, and a handwritten note with the victim's name was found in the suspect's wallet, which establishes that the jewelry store had been burglarized once before, five years ago.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the book is interesting, and emily had recently taken a self-defense course, so the book is interesting. | If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the book is interesting | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The book is interesting | modus ponen | Emily had recently taken a self-defense course | The book is interesting | Emily had not recently taken a self-defense course | The book is not interesting | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily had recently taken a self-defense course then the book is interesting, and emily had recently taken a self-defense course, so the book is interesting.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, which shows that a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine. | If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | modus ponen | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | A threatening message was left on Laura's answering machine | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | A threatening message was not left on Laura's answering machine | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, which shows that a threatening message was left on laura's answering machine.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is teething then the weather is hot and humid, and the weather is not hot and humid, so the baby is not teething. | If the baby is teething then the weather is hot and humid | The weather is not hot and humid | The baby is not teething | modus tollen | The baby is teething | The weather is hot and humid | The baby is not teething | The weather is not hot and humid | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is teething then the weather is hot and humid, and the weather is not hot and humid, so the baby is not teething.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the baby is crying in the car, and the baby is not crying in the car, which shows that laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop. | If laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the baby is crying in the car | The baby is not crying in the car | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | modus tollen | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The baby is crying in the car | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | 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 laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop then the baby is crying in the car, and the baby is not crying in the car, which shows that laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of identity theft then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the weather is not cloudy and rainy, which shows that john davis did not have a history of identity theft. | If john davis had a history of identity theft then the weather is cloudy and rainy | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of identity theft | The weather is cloudy and rainy | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of identity theft then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the weather is not cloudy and rainy, which shows that john davis did not have a history of identity theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, and the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, which shows that laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone. | If laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | modus tollen | Laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone | The victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder | Laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone | The victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just 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 laura's friends received disturbing messages from her phone then the victim's life insurance policy had been increased just before the murder, and the victim's life insurance policy had not been increased just before the murder, which shows that laura's friends did not receive disturbing messages from her phone.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which establishes that a bloody footprint was found in the living room. | If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a bloody footprint was found in the living room | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | modus ponen | The suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | A bloody footprint was found in the living room | The suspect's fingerprints were not discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen | No bloody footprint was found in the living room | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen then a bloody footprint was found in the living room, and the suspect's fingerprints were discovered on a glass in the victim's kitchen, which establishes that a 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|>
|
The baby is sleeping, because if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the baby is sleeping and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon. | If emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the baby is sleeping | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The baby is sleeping | modus ponen | Emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon | The baby is sleeping | Emily's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon | 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: ```The baby is sleeping, because if emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon then the baby is sleeping and emily's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, thus a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway. | If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | modus ponen | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | No bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, thus a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders, as if john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair. | If john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of violating restraining orders | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair | John Davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders | A diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis did not have a history of violating restraining orders, as if john davis had a history of violating restraining orders then a diary entry in the victim's handwriting hinted at a secret affair and a diary entry in the victim's handwriting did not hint at a secret affair.```<|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 the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, which implies that a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle. | If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the baby is crawling | The baby is not crawling | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | modus tollen | A neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle | The baby is crawling | A neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle | The baby is not crawling | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor's security camera footage shows a suspicious vehicle then the baby is crawling, and the baby is not crawling, which implies that a neighbor's security camera footage does not show a suspicious vehicle.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, since if john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit. | If john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk | John davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | modus ponen | John Davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit | Detective Washington found a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | John Davis was not in possession of a lock-picking kit | Detective Washington did not find a hidden compartment in Emily's car trunk | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk, since if john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit then detective washington found a hidden compartment in emily's car trunk and john davis was in possession of a lock-picking kit.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, therefore no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder. | If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | modus tollen | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then laura's car was found with a slashed tire, and laura's car was not found with a slashed tire, therefore no security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, so a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene. | If surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | modus ponen | Surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene | Surveillance footage does not show a suspicious van parked near Sarah's house | 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 surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house then a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, and surveillance footage shows a suspicious van parked near sarah's house, so a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is happy then the cat is sleeping in the sun, and the dog is happy, which implies that the cat is sleeping in the sun. | If the dog is happy then the cat is sleeping in the sun | The dog is happy | The cat is sleeping in the sun | modus ponen | The dog is happy | The cat is sleeping in the sun | The dog is not happy | The cat is not sleeping in the sun | 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 happy then the cat is sleeping in the sun, and the dog is happy, which implies that the cat is sleeping in the sun.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and no witness heard screams coming from laura's house, thus no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house. | If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house | No witness heard screams coming from laura's house | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | A witness heard screams coming from Laura's house | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | 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 a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then a witness heard screams coming from laura's house, and no witness heard screams coming from laura's house, thus no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, which shows that laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed. | If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | Emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | modus ponen | Emily was seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | Emily was not seen arguing with Sarah the day before the murder | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and emily was seen arguing with sarah the day before the murder, which shows that laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, hence the book is not written by a famous author. | If the book is written by a famous author then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | Emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The book is not written by a famous author | modus tollen | The book is written by a famous author | Emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate | The book is not written by a famous author | 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 the book is written by a famous author then emily had recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, and emily had not recently taken out a loan with a high-interest rate, hence the book is not written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment 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, hence no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment. | If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment then the 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 neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | No neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment 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, hence no neighbor reported hearing a loud crash coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, since if the movie is a family film then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door and the movie is a family film. | If the movie is a family film then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | The movie is a family film | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | modus ponen | The movie is a family film | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | The movie is not a family film | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, since if the movie is a family film then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door and the movie is a family film.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is not shining brightly overhead, because if the sun is shining brightly overhead then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim and the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | The suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | The suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not shining brightly overhead, because if the sun is shining brightly overhead then the suspect had a documented history of stalking the victim and the suspect did not have a documented history of stalking the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, and footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene, which implies that the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon. | If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene | Footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | Footprints matching John's shoes were found near the scene | The suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon | Footprints matching John's shoes were not found near the scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon then footprints matching john's shoes were found near the scene, and footprints matching john's shoes were not found near the scene, which implies that the suspect had not recently purchased a gun similar to the murder weapon.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, hence no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house. | If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | No suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | modus tollen | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | A suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | No suspicious package was left on Laura's doorstep | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then a suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, and no suspicious package was left on laura's doorstep, hence no neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then john davis was found with a bag of cash, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, so it can be concluded that john davis was found with a bag of cash. | If a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park then john davis was found with a bag of cash | A witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | John Davis was found with a bag of cash | No witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | John Davis was not found with a bag of cash | 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 john davis was found with a bag of cash, and a witness reported seeing emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park, so it can be concluded that john davis was found with a bag of cash.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is written by a famous author then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, which implies that the book is not written by a famous author. | If the book is written by a famous author then john davis had a history of stalking laura | John davis did not have a history of stalking laura | The book is not written by a famous author | modus tollen | The book is written by a famous author | John Davis had a history of stalking Laura | The book is not written by a famous author | John Davis did not have a history of stalking Laura | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is written by a famous author then john davis had a history of stalking laura, and john davis did not have a history of stalking laura, which implies that the book is not written by a famous author.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is interesting then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and the book is interesting, hence the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage. | If the book is interesting then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | The book is interesting | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | modus ponen | The book is interesting | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage | The book is not interesting | The murder weapon, a baseball bat, was not located in the victim's garage | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the book is interesting then the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage, and the book is interesting, hence the murder weapon, a baseball bat, was located in the victim's garage.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, because if richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles. | If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | modus ponen | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | The store owner, Richard Anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | The store owner, Richard Anderson, did not have a rocky relationship with his employees | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees, because if richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then the store owner, richard anderson, had a rocky relationship with his employees and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, therefore sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily. | If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | modus ponen | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | Sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to Emily | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | 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 handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then sarah had recently changed her will, leaving everything to emily, and a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession, therefore 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 had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, hence a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man. | If the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect then a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | modus ponen | The victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | A homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | The victim had not recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect | No homeless woman named Rosa claims to have seen Sarah with an unfamiliar man | 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 a homeless woman named rosa claims to have seen sarah with an unfamiliar man, and the victim had recently hired a private investigator to look into the suspect, hence a 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|>
|
No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, as if a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the weather is cloudy and rainy and the weather is not cloudy and rainy. | If a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the weather is cloudy and rainy | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | modus tollen | A hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The weather is cloudy and rainy | No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster, as if a hidden camera captured the suspect disposing of evidence in a dumpster then the weather is cloudy and rainy and the weather is not cloudy and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, which establishes that the murder weapon was not a baseball bat. | If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | modus tollen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | The stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | The stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then the stolen car was discovered abandoned in a remote forest, and the stolen car was not discovered abandoned in a remote forest, which establishes that the murder weapon was not a baseball bat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house, since if laura had a secret storage room in her house then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted and the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted. | If laura had a secret storage room in her house then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | modus tollen | Laura had a secret storage room in her house | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura did not have a secret storage room in her house, since if laura had a secret storage room in her house then the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted and the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, hence the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster. | If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | modus ponen | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | The victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | 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 laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, hence the victim's cellphone was found in a nearby dumpster.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, because if laura's garage door was left open then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night and laura's garage door was left open. | If laura's garage door was left open then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Laura's garage door was left open | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | modus ponen | Laura's garage door was left open | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | Laura's garage door was not left open | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night, because if laura's garage door was left open then a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night and laura's garage door was left open.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, since if a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder. | If a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | modus ponen | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | No witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard, since if a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder then a witness reported seeing the suspect burn clothing in their backyard and a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura did not have a life insurance policy, since if laura had a life insurance policy then the book is on the table and the book is not on the table. | If laura had a life insurance policy then the book is on the table | The book is not on the table | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | modus tollen | Laura had a life insurance policy | The book is on the table | Laura did not have a life insurance policy | The book is not on the table | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura did not have a life insurance policy, since if laura had a life insurance policy then the book is on the table and the book is not on the table.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a history of substance abuse then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, which shows that john davis did not have a history of substance abuse. | If john davis had a history of substance abuse then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat | A recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | modus tollen | John Davis had a history of substance abuse | A recorded voicemail from Laura contains a threat | John Davis did not have a history of substance abuse | A recorded voicemail from Laura does not contain a threat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a history of substance abuse then a recorded voicemail from laura contains a threat, and a recorded voicemail from laura does not contain a threat, which shows that john davis did not have a history of substance abuse.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and the baby is not crawling towards the cat, so the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country. | If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the baby is crawling towards the cat | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The baby is crawling towards the cat | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and the baby is not crawling towards the cat, so the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, which shows that a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car. | If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | modus ponen | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's medical records were accessed without authorization then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, and laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, which shows that a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a history of identity theft, as if emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then john davis had a history of identity theft and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask. | If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then john davis had a history of identity theft | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | John Davis had a history of identity theft | modus ponen | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | John Davis had a history of identity theft | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | John Davis did not have a history of identity theft | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis had a history of identity theft, as if emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then john davis had a history of identity theft and emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the car is moving then the car is parked on the street, and the car is not parked on the street, thus the car is not moving. | If the car is moving then the car is parked on the street | The car is not parked on the street | The car is not moving | modus tollen | The car is moving | The car is parked on the street | The car is not moving | The car is not parked on the street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the car is moving then the car is parked on the street, and the car is not parked on the street, thus the car is not moving.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is setting then the weather is cold and rainy, and the sun is setting, so it can be concluded that the weather is cold and rainy. | If the sun is setting then the weather is cold and rainy | The sun is setting | The weather is cold and rainy | modus ponen | The sun is setting | The weather is cold and rainy | The sun is not setting | The weather is not cold and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting then the weather is cold and rainy, and the sun is setting, so it can be concluded that the weather is cold and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the sun is shining brightly, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, therefore the sun is shining brightly. | If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the sun is shining brightly | John davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | The sun is shining brightly | modus ponen | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The sun is shining brightly | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The sun is not shining brightly | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone then the sun is shining brightly, and john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, therefore the sun is shining brightly.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the movie is a science fiction film then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and the movie is a science fiction film, which establishes that a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene. | If the movie is a science fiction film then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The movie is a science fiction film | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | modus ponen | The movie is a science fiction film | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | The movie is not a science fiction film | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the movie is a science fiction film then a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, and the movie is a science fiction film, which establishes that a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The sun is not setting slowly in the sky, since if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon and the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | The suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | The suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```The sun is not setting slowly in the sky, since if the sun is setting slowly in the sky then the suspect had recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon and the suspect had not recently purchased a firearm matching the murder weapon.```<|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 the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, hence the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals. | If a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim then the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | modus ponen | A surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The suspect had a history of violence against other individuals | No surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim | The suspect had no history of violence against other individuals | 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 the suspect had a history of violence against other individuals, and a surveillance camera captured the suspect following the victim, hence the suspect had a 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 a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, which shows that the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity. | If a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone then the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | modus ponen | A witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | No witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone | The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity | 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 the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, and a witness reported hearing the suspect threaten the victim over the phone, which shows that the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then laura's pet cat is missing, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which implies that laura's pet cat is missing. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then laura's pet cat is missing | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | Laura's pet cat is missing | modus ponen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | Laura's pet cat is missing | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | Laura's pet cat is not missing | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then laura's pet cat is missing, and a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, which implies that laura's pet cat is 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 handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the car is parked on the street, and the car is not parked on the street, hence a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home. | If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the car is parked on the street | The car is not parked on the street | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | modus tollen | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home | The car is parked on the street | A handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not discovered in the suspect's home | The car is not parked on the street | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was discovered in the suspect's home then the car is parked on the street, and the car is not parked on the street, hence a handwritten letter addressed to the victim was not 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 a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, and a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, so no neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night. | If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | modus tollen | A neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | A forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | No neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night | A forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night then a forensic expert found traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, and a forensic expert did not find traces of the victim's blood in the suspect's car, so no neighbor reported hearing glass breaking at night.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which shows that the weather is cloudy and rainy. | If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the weather is cloudy and rainy | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The weather is cloudy and rainy | modus ponen | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The weather is cloudy and rainy | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The weather is not cloudy and rainy | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect then the weather is cloudy and rainy, and the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, which shows that the weather is cloudy and rainy.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the mailman then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, which shows that the dog is not barking at the mailman. | If the dog is barking at the mailman then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The dog is not barking at the mailman | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the mailman | A security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | The dog is not barking at the mailman | No security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the mailman then a security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, and no security guard uniform was discovered in a nearby dumpster, which shows that the dog is not barking at the mailman.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, which implies that laura's dog was found locked in a closet. | If a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then laura's dog was found locked in a closet | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | modus ponen | A trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by Emily | Laura's dog was found locked in a closet | A trail of stolen jewelry does not lead to a storage unit rented by Emily | 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 a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily then laura's dog was found locked in a closet, and a trail of stolen jewelry leads to a storage unit rented by emily, which implies that laura's dog was found locked in a closet.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, which establishes that no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen. | If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | modus tollen | A cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | Laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door | No cryptic message was left on Laura's computer screen | Laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen then laura's neighbors reported seeing strange symbols painted on her door, and laura's neighbors did not report seeing strange symbols painted on her door, which establishes that no cryptic message was left on laura's computer screen.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the eiffel tower is in paris then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, which shows that the eiffel tower is not in paris. | If the eiffel tower is in paris then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | Detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | modus tollen | The Eiffel Tower is in Paris | Detective Ellis discovered a hidden compartment in Sarah's bedroom | The Eiffel Tower is not in Paris | Detective Ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in Sarah'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 eiffel tower is in paris then detective ellis discovered a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, and detective ellis did not discover a hidden compartment in sarah's bedroom, which shows that the eiffel tower is not in paris.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, thus the dog is not barking. | If the dog is barking then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | Emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The dog is not barking | modus tollen | The dog is barking | Emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle | The dog is not barking | 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: ```If the dog is barking then emily's social media posts hinted at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, and emily's social media posts did not hint at a desire for a luxurious lifestyle, thus the dog is not barking.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, which implies that emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask. | If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | John davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | modus tollen | Emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | Emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily was captured on camera purchasing a clown mask then john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest, and john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest, which implies that emily was not captured on camera purchasing a clown mask.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's laptop was found smashed then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, so laura's laptop was not found smashed. | If laura's laptop was found smashed then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | The victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | modus tollen | Laura's laptop was found smashed | The victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect | Laura's laptop was not found smashed | 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 laura's laptop was found smashed then the victim's will had been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, and the victim's will had not been altered, leaving everything to the suspect, so laura's laptop was not found smashed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a gas leak was detected in the basement then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, and laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, which establishes that a gas leak was not detected in the basement. | If a gas leak was detected in the basement then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | Laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | modus tollen | A gas leak was detected in the basement | Laura had recently changed the locks on her doors | A gas leak was not detected in the basement | 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 a gas leak was detected in the basement then laura had recently changed the locks on her doors, and laura had not recently changed the locks on her doors, which establishes that a gas leak was not detected in the basement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, because if a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime. | If a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | The suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | modus tollen | A security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | The suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime | A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property | 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: ```A security guard did not report seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property, because if a security guard reported seeing the suspect trespassing on the victim's property then the suspect had a prior conviction for a similar crime and the suspect did not have a prior conviction for a similar crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, so the baby is crawling towards the cat. | If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the baby is crawling towards the cat | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | The baby is crawling towards the cat | modus ponen | A witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | The baby is crawling towards the cat | No witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder | The baby is not crawling towards the cat | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder then the baby is crawling towards the cat, and a witness claimed to have seen the suspect with a bloody shirt on the night of the murder, so the baby is crawling towards the cat.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, so detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard. | If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | modus ponen | Laura's car was found with a slashed tire | Detective Hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | Laura's car was not found with a slashed tire | Detective Hayes did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry buried in Emily's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's car was found with a slashed tire then detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard, and laura's car was found with a slashed tire, so detective hayes discovered a stash of stolen jewelry buried in emily's backyard.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, since if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information and the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information. | If a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | modus tollen | A handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession | The victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information | A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession | The victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A handwritten note with the victim's address was not found in the suspect's possession, since if a handwritten note with the victim's address was found in the suspect's possession then the victim's laptop contained encrypted files with sensitive information and the victim's laptop did not contain encrypted files with sensitive information.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the sun is shining then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone, which establishes that the sun is not shining. | If the sun is shining then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone | John davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone | The sun is not shining | modus tollen | The sun is shining | John Davis had a recorded argument with Laura on his phone | The sun is not shining | John Davis did not have a recorded argument with Laura on his 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 sun is shining then john davis had a recorded argument with laura on his phone, and john davis did not have a recorded argument with laura on his phone, which establishes that the sun is not shining.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery, which establishes that surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | The security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | modus tollen | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | The security guard, Marcus, was on vacation during the robbery | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | 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 surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then the security guard, marcus, was on vacation during the robbery, and the security guard, marcus, was not on vacation during the robbery, which establishes that surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, which shows that john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest. | If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox | A handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | modus tollen | John Davis had scratches on his face during the arrest | A handwritten note with threats was found in Laura's mailbox | John Davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest | A handwritten note with threats was not found in Laura's mailbox | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If john davis had scratches on his face during the arrest then a handwritten note with threats was found in laura's mailbox, and a handwritten note with threats was not found in laura's mailbox, which shows that john davis did not have scratches on his face during the arrest.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, as if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers and the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization. | If the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | modus ponen | The jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization | Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers | The jewelry store's alarm code was not changed without authorization | 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: ```Emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers, as if the jewelry store's alarm code was changed without authorization then emily had a history of confrontations with her co-workers and the jewelry store's alarm code was 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|>
|
Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, since if the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number. | If the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | modus ponen | The victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number | Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop | The victim's phone records did not show multiple calls from an unknown number | Laura's jewelry was not pawned at a nearby shop | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop, since if the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number then laura's jewelry was pawned at a nearby shop and the victim's phone records showed multiple calls from an unknown number.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
The movie is not a sports film, because if the movie is a sports film then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter and detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter. | If the movie is a sports film then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter | Detective martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter | The movie is not a sports film | modus tollen | The movie is a sports film | Detective Martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | The movie is not a sports film | Detective Martin did not discover a stash of stolen jewelry in Charlie's makeshift shelter | 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 sports film, because if the movie is a sports film then detective martin discovered a stash of stolen jewelry in charlie's makeshift shelter and 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 sun is shining brightly overhead 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, which shows that the sun is not shining brightly overhead. | If the sun is shining brightly overhead 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 sun is not shining brightly overhead | modus tollen | The sun is shining brightly overhead | A witness reported seeing Emily arguing with a mysterious man in a park | The sun is not shining brightly overhead | 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 the sun is shining brightly overhead 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, which shows that the sun is not shining brightly overhead.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, which establishes that laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed. | If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | modus ponen | Surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | Laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed | Surveillance footage did not show the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime | Laura's work computer did not have a hidden camera installed | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime then laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed, and surveillance footage showed the suspect purchasing cleaning supplies before the crime, which establishes that laura's work computer had a hidden camera installed.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, which establishes that no threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace. | If a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | Surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | modus tollen | A threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | Surveillance footage shows Emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery | No threatening letter was mailed to Laura's workplace | 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 a threatening letter was mailed to laura's workplace then surveillance footage shows emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show emily visiting a pawn shop the day after the robbery, which establishes that no 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|>
|
John davis has a history of violent behavior, since if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then john davis has a history of violent behavior and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder. | If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then john davis has a history of violent behavior | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | modus ponen | The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | John Davis has a history of violent behavior | The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder | John Davis does not have a history of violent behavior | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```John davis has a history of violent behavior, since if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then john davis has a history of violent behavior and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the book is a mystery novel then water is h2o, and water is not h2o, which establishes that the book is not a mystery novel. | If the book is a mystery novel then water is h2o | Water is not h2o | The book is not a mystery novel | modus tollen | The book is a mystery novel | Water is H2O | The book is not a mystery novel | Water is not H2O | 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 water is h2o, and water is not h2o, which establishes that the book is not a mystery novel.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, as if a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment. | If a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | modus ponen | A neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization | No neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment | Laura's medical records were not accessed without authorization | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's medical records were accessed without authorization, as if a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment then laura's medical records were accessed without authorization and a neighbor reported hearing a heated argument coming from the victim's apartment.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the movie is a horror film, and the movie is not a horror film, which establishes that the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country. | If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the movie is a horror film | The movie is not a horror film | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | modus tollen | The suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The movie is a horror film | The suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country | The movie is not a horror film | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country then the movie is a horror film, and the movie is not a horror film, which establishes that the suspect had not recently purchased a one-way plane ticket to a foreign country.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the apple is red then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, hence the apple is not red. | If the apple is red then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id | The apple is not red | modus tollen | The apple is red | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | The apple is not red | No stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the apple is red then a stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, and no stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with emily's id, hence the apple is not red.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|