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 the computer is on then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and the computer is on, which establishes that a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder. | If the computer is on then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | The computer is on | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | modus ponen | The computer is on | A security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | The computer is not on | No security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the computer is on then a security camera captured the suspect entering the victim's home the night of the murder, and the computer is on, which establishes that 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|>
|
If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the tree is tall, and the tree is not tall, which implies that the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement. | If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the tree is tall | The tree is not tall | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | modus tollen | The victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement | The tree is tall | The victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement | The tree is not tall | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's laptop contained evidence of financial embezzlement then the tree is tall, and the tree is not tall, which implies that the victim's laptop did not contain evidence of financial embezzlement.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, so a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack. | If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | modus ponen | A witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | A witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | No witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene | No witness saw John Davis disposing of a backpack | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene then a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack, and a witness reported seeing a suspicious figure near the crime scene, so a witness saw john davis disposing of a backpack.```<|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 a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and a broken chair was not found in the kitchen, thus the murder weapon was not a baseball bat. | If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then a broken chair was found in the kitchen | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | modus tollen | The murder weapon was a baseball bat | A broken chair was found in the kitchen | The murder weapon was not a baseball bat | A broken chair was not found in the kitchen | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the murder weapon was a baseball bat then a broken chair was found in the kitchen, and a broken chair was not found in the kitchen, thus 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|>
|
If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, which establishes that the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk. | If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | modus ponen | The coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk | The coroner's report does not indicate signs of strangulation | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car trunk | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk, and the coroner's report indicates signs of strangulation, which establishes that the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car trunk.```<|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 witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, which implies that witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist. | If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | modus ponen | A neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | Witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | No neighbor reported smelling gasoline near Laura's house | Witness testimonies do not suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house then witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist, and a neighbor reported smelling gasoline near laura's house, which implies that witness testimonies suggest two perpetrators in the jewelry heist.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, so laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions. | If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | modus tollen | Laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions | The victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | Laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions | The victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If laura's bank accounts showed suspicious transactions then the victim had a history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, and the victim had no history of seeking restraining orders against the suspect, so laura's bank accounts did not show suspicious transactions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, so it can be concluded that the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns. | If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the dog is barking at the mailman | The dog is not barking at the mailman | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | modus tollen | The victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The dog is barking at the mailman | The victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns | The dog is not barking at the mailman | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim had recently changed their locks due to security concerns then the dog is barking at the mailman, and the dog is not barking at the mailman, so it can be concluded that the victim had not recently changed their locks due to security concerns.```<|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 officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that 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 officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene | Officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | 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 | Officer Smith found a broken window at the crime scene | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | Officer Smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, and officer smith did not find a broken window at the crime scene, which implies that 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|>
|
Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, since if the baby is crying then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident and the baby is crying. | If the baby is crying then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | The baby is crying | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | modus ponen | The baby is crying | Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident | The baby is not crying | Laura's car was not vandalized the week before the incident | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```Laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident, since if the baby is crying then laura's car was vandalized the week before the incident and the baby is crying.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the dog is barking at the neighbors then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking at the neighbors. | If the dog is barking at the neighbors then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | modus tollen | The dog is barking at the neighbors | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky | The dog is not barking at the neighbors | Emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the dog is barking at the neighbors then emily's alibi for the night of the murder is shaky, and emily's alibi for the night of the murder is not shaky, so it can be concluded that the dog is not barking at the neighbors.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, therefore emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft. | If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | modus tollen | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, has a criminal record for theft | Surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | Emily's ex-boyfriend, Daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft | Surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, has a criminal record for theft then surveillance footage shows a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, and surveillance footage does not show a hooded figure casing the store days before the robbery, therefore emily's ex-boyfriend, daniel, does not have a criminal record for theft.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
Detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, since if detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim and the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim. | If detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | modus tollen | Detective Baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | Detective Baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement | 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: ```Detective baker did not find a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement, since if detective baker found a secret ledger in the jewelry store's basement then the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim and the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the baby is playing with a toy car then dogs are not fish, and the baby is playing with a toy car, so dogs are not fish. | If the baby is playing with a toy car then dogs are not fish | The baby is playing with a toy car | Dogs are not fish | modus ponen | The baby is playing with a toy car | Dogs are not fish | The baby is not playing with a toy car | Dogs are fish | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the baby is playing with a toy car then dogs are not fish, and the baby is playing with a toy car, so dogs are not fish.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker, which establishes that a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace. | If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | modus tollen | A handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace | The store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker | A handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace | The store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a handwritten letter from the suspect was found at the victim's workplace then the store's cleaning crew reported unusual behavior from a coworker, and the store's cleaning crew did not report unusual behavior from a coworker, which establishes that a handwritten letter from the suspect was not found at the victim's workplace.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, because if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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. | If a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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 | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | modus tollen | A hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | A stolen bracelet was recovered from a pawn shop with Emily's ID | No hidden camera was found in Laura's bedroom | 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: ```No hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom, because if a hidden camera was found in laura's bedroom 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.```<|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 a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, as if the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim. | If the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | modus ponen | The suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim | A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | The suspect's social media posts did not hint at a grudge against the victim | A neighbor did not report a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```A neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard, as if the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim then a neighbor reported a strong odor coming from the suspect's backyard and the suspect's social media posts hinted at a grudge against the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, so it can be concluded that a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway. | If sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | Sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | modus ponen | Sarah's sister, Emily, was the last person to see her before the murder | A bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway | Sarah's sister, Emily, was not the last person to see her before the murder | 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 sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder then a bloody shoeprint matching the suspect's size was found in the hallway, and sarah's sister, emily, was the last person to see her before the murder, so it can be concluded that 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|>
|
If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, so the sun is not setting slowly in the sky. | If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home | A jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | modus tollen | The sun is setting slowly in the sky | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was found at Marcus's home | The sun is not setting slowly in the sky | A jeweler's loupe with Sarah's fingerprints was not found at Marcus's home | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the sun is setting slowly in the sky then a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was found at marcus's home, and a jeweler's loupe with sarah's fingerprints was not found at marcus's home, so the sun is not setting slowly in the sky.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
John davis had a history of anger management issues, because if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then john davis had a history of anger management issues and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal. | If laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then john davis had a history of anger management issues | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | modus ponen | Laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal | John Davis had a history of anger management issues | Laura's bank account did not have a recent large withdrawal | 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: ```John davis had a history of anger management issues, because if laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal then john davis had a history of anger management issues and laura's bank account had a recent large withdrawal.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the cat is black then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, which shows that the cat is not black. | If the cat is black then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession | A gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession | The cat is not black | modus tollen | The cat is black | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was found in Emily's possession | The cat is not black | A GPS device linked to the stolen van was not found in Emily's possession | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the cat is black then a gps device linked to the stolen van was found in emily's possession, and a gps device linked to the stolen van was not found in emily's possession, which shows that the cat is not black.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, since if a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the movie is a thriller and the movie is not a thriller. | If a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the movie is a thriller | The movie is not a thriller | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | modus tollen | A homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | The movie is a thriller | No homeless man named Jerry claimed to have overheard Emily discussing the robbery | The movie is not a thriller | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```No homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery, since if a homeless man named jerry claimed to have overheard emily discussing the robbery then the movie is a thriller and the movie is not a thriller.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, therefore the store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted. | If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then laura had recently changed her social media passwords | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | modus tollen | The store's security footage was mysteriously deleted | Laura had recently changed her social media passwords | The store's security footage was not mysteriously deleted | Laura had not recently changed her social media passwords | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the store's security footage was mysteriously deleted then laura had recently changed her social media passwords, and laura had not recently changed her social media passwords, therefore 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 the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, thus the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim. | If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | modus tollen | The suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m | The suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim | The robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect had a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim then the robbery occurred at 8:45 p.m, and the robbery did not occur at 8:45 p.m, thus the suspect did not have a collection of newspaper clippings about the victim.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, hence a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder. | If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | Richard anderson had a history of financial troubles | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | modus ponen | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | A security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If richard anderson had a history of financial troubles then a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder, and richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, hence a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, so the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions. | If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles | Richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | modus tollen | The suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions | Richard Anderson had a history of financial troubles | The suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions | Richard Anderson did not have a history of financial troubles | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the suspect's social media accounts contained photos of the victim with threatening captions then richard anderson had a history of financial troubles, and richard anderson did not have a history of financial troubles, so the suspect's social media accounts did not contain photos of the victim with threatening captions.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle, hence the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime. | If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | modus tollen | The victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime | The suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle | The victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime | The suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If the victim's bank account showed unusual activity on the day of the crime then the suspect's fingerprints were found on the victim's car door handle, and the suspect's fingerprints were not found on the victim's car door handle, hence the victim's bank account did not show unusual activity on the day of the crime.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|
If a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the dog is barking, and the dog is not barking, so it can be concluded that 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 the dog is barking | The dog is not barking | 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 | The dog is barking | No security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of 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 a security camera captured the suspect leaving the victim's home on the night of the murder then the dog is barking, and the dog is not barking, so it can be concluded that 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 a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, therefore a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office. | If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office | A jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | modus ponen | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, had a gambling addiction | A bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | A jewelry store employee, Michelle, did not have a gambling addiction | No bloodstained letter was discovered in Laura's office | true | <s><|user|>
Given the following argument, identify the following elements: premises, conclusion, type of argument, negation of premises and validity.
Input: ```If a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction then a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office, and a jewelry store employee, michelle, had a gambling addiction, therefore a bloodstained letter was discovered in laura's office.```<|end|>
<|assistant|>
Premise: {premise1}
Premise: {premise2}
Conclusion: {conclusion}
Type of argument: {argumentType}
Negation of premises: {negation1}
Negation of conclusion: {negation2}
Validity: {valid}<|end|>
|