Datasets:
original_prompt stringlengths 233 468 | original_completion stringlengths 153 320 | enhanced_prompt float64 | enhanced_completion float64 |
|---|---|---|---|
Premises:
1. All turbines are rated for deep pressure.
2. All kilns are rated for deep pressure.
Claimed step: Therefore, every kiln is a turbine.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | The middle term is undistributed. Both classes share the property rated for deep pressure, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about kilns being turbines.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a whale is rated for deep pressure, then it is checked for hairline cracks.
2. Hoang's whale is rated for deep pressure.
Claimed step: Therefore, Hoang's whale is checked for hairline cracks.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end ... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being rated for deep pressure is enough to be checked for hairline cracks, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this whale, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a whale is logged in the registry, then it is repainted each spring.
2. Greta's whale is repainted each spring.
3. No cello is fired above 1200 degrees.
Claimed step: Therefore, Greta's whale is logged in the registry.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being logged in the registry without being repainted each spring; something can be repainted each spring for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a orchid is mapped by survey, then it is checked for hairline cracks.
2. Ines's orchid is not checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ines's orchid is not mapped by survey.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with ... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being mapped by survey guaranteed being checked for hairline cracks, then something that is not checked for hairline cracks cannot be mapped by survey.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a nebula is tuned to concert pitch, then it is mapped by survey.
2. Mateo's nebula is not tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, Mateo's nebula is not mapped by survey.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdic... | This denies the antecedent. Being tuned to concert pitch is sufficient for being mapped by survey, not necessary, so a nebula that is not tuned to concert pitch may still be mapped by survey.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a ledger is load-bearing, then it is warm-blooded.
2. Tomas's ledger is not warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Tomas's ledger is not load-bearing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being load-bearing guaranteed being warm-blooded, then something that is not warm-blooded cannot be load-bearing.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No turbine is rated for deep pressure.
2. All sparrows are magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one sparrow is magnetically shielded.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This is the existential fallacy. A universal claim about sparrows says what holds of any sparrow there is, but it does not assert that a sparrow exists, so existence cannot be inferred. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a mammal is magnetically shielded, then it is tuned to concert pitch.
2. No alloy is mapped by survey.
3. Greta's mammal is magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Greta's mammal is tuned to concert pitch.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or thre... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being magnetically shielded is enough to be tuned to concert pitch, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this mammal, so the consequent follows. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All turbines are stored below freezing.
2. All orchids are stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, every orchid is a turbine.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | The middle term is undistributed. Both classes share the property stored below freezing, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about orchids being turbines.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All orchids are insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one orchid is insured against flood.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This is the existential fallacy. A universal claim about orchids says what holds of any orchid there is, but it does not assert that a orchid exists, so existence cannot be inferred.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All monsoons are grown in shade.
2. All mammals are grown in shade.
3. No submarine is stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, every monsoon is a mammal.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | The middle term is undistributed. Both classes share the property grown in shade, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about monsoons being mammals. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Rafa's orchid is audited annually or it is magnetically shielded.
2. Rafa's orchid is not audited annually.
Claimed step: Therefore, Rafa's orchid is magnetically shielded.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict ... | This is a disjunctive syllogism. One of the two disjuncts must hold, and the first has been ruled out, so the second stands.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a ledger is fired above 1200 degrees, then it is stored below freezing.
2. If a ledger is stored below freezing, then it is warm-blooded.
3. No ledger is magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a ledger is fired above 1200 degrees, then it is warm-blooded.
Does this step follow from the pre... | This is a hypothetical syllogism. The two conditionals share a middle term, so they compose into a single conditional from the first antecedent to the last consequent. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Every nebula is a beetle.
2. All beetles are grown in shade.
Claimed step: Therefore, every nebula is grown in shade.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This chains two universal claims. Every nebula falls inside the class of beetles, and the second premise applies grown in shade to all of that class, so it applies to every nebula as well.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All mammals are repainted each spring.
2. No fern is magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is repainted each spring is a mammal.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This converts a universal claim illicitly. 'All mammals are repainted each spring' leaves room for things that are repainted each spring without being mammals, so the reverse does not hold. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Hoang's comet is not checked for hairline cracks.
2. No violin is repainted each spring.
3. If a comet is checked for hairline cracks, then it is magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Hoang's comet is not magnetically shielded.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? E... | This denies the antecedent. Being checked for hairline cracks is sufficient for being magnetically shielded, not necessary, so a comet that is not checked for hairline cracks may still be magnetically shielded. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a submarine is repainted each spring, then it is logged in the registry.
2. Lucia's submarine is not logged in the registry.
3. No nebula is stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Lucia's submarine is not repainted each spring.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone?... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being repainted each spring guaranteed being logged in the registry, then something that is not logged in the registry cannot be repainted each spring. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Tomas's nebula is not load-bearing.
2. If a nebula is load-bearing, then it is checked for hairline cracks.
3. No violin is audited annually.
Claimed step: Therefore, Tomas's nebula is not checked for hairline cracks.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or thr... | This denies the antecedent. Being load-bearing is sufficient for being checked for hairline cracks, not necessary, so a nebula that is not load-bearing may still be checked for hairline cracks. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All beetles are insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not insured against flood is not a beetle.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This is contraposition. 'All beetles are insured against flood' and 'whatever is not insured against flood is not a beetle' are logically equivalent, so the step preserves the premise exactly.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a beetle is stored below freezing, then it is tuned to concert pitch.
2. Baruch's beetle is not tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, Baruch's beetle is not stored below freezing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end w... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being stored below freezing guaranteed being tuned to concert pitch, then something that is not tuned to concert pitch cannot be stored below freezing.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No fern is fired above 1200 degrees.
2. Every submarine is a orchid.
3. All orchids are insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, every submarine is insured against flood.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict li... | This chains two universal claims. Every submarine falls inside the class of orchids, and the second premise applies insured against flood to all of that class, so it applies to every submarine as well. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No nebula is grown in shade.
2. If a whale is fired above 1200 degrees, then it is load-bearing.
3. Dmitri's whale is fired above 1200 degrees.
Claimed step: Therefore, Dmitri's whale is load-bearing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, the... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being fired above 1200 degrees is enough to be load-bearing, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this whale, so the consequent follows. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Omar's beetle is insured against flood or it is checked for hairline cracks.
2. Omar's beetle is not insured against flood.
3. No mammal is stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Omar's beetle is checked for hairline cracks.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone... | This is a disjunctive syllogism. One of the two disjuncts must hold, and the first has been ruled out, so the second stands. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Quinn's mammal is not grown in shade.
2. No alloy is stored below freezing.
3. Either Quinn's mammal is grown in shade or it is mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, Quinn's mammal is mapped by survey.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentence... | This is a disjunctive syllogism. One of the two disjuncts must hold, and the first has been ruled out, so the second stands. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All lighthouses are mapped by survey.
2. No sparrow is grown in shade.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one lighthouse is mapped by survey.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This is the existential fallacy. A universal claim about lighthouses says what holds of any lighthouse there is, but it does not assert that a lighthouse exists, so existence cannot be inferred. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All violins are load-bearing.
2. All orchids are load-bearing.
3. No fern is magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, every violin is a orchid.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | The middle term is undistributed. Both classes share the property load-bearing, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about violins being orchids. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No fern is tuned to concert pitch.
2. All comets are audited annually.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is audited annually is a comet.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This converts a universal claim illicitly. 'All comets are audited annually' leaves room for things that are audited annually without being comets, so the reverse does not hold. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a orchid is logged in the registry, then it is fed by meltwater.
2. Celia's orchid is fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, Celia's orchid is logged in the registry.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being logged in the registry without being fed by meltwater; something can be fed by meltwater for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Every alloy is a ledger.
2. No sparrow is fired above 1200 degrees.
3. All ledgers are checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, every alloy is checked for hairline cracks.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a ver... | This chains two universal claims. Every alloy falls inside the class of ledgers, and the second premise applies checked for hairline cracks to all of that class, so it applies to every alloy as well. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All lighthouses are checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one lighthouse is checked for hairline cracks.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This is the existential fallacy. A universal claim about lighthouses says what holds of any lighthouse there is, but it does not assert that a lighthouse exists, so existence cannot be inferred.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Omar's monsoon is not grown in shade.
2. No beetle is warm-blooded.
3. If a monsoon is grown in shade, then it is tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, Omar's monsoon is not tuned to concert pitch.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three senten... | This denies the antecedent. Being grown in shade is sufficient for being tuned to concert pitch, not necessary, so a monsoon that is not grown in shade may still be tuned to concert pitch. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Baruch's comet is logged in the registry or it is grown in shade.
2. Baruch's comet is not logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, Baruch's comet is grown in shade.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict... | This is a disjunctive syllogism. One of the two disjuncts must hold, and the first has been ruled out, so the second stands.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Mateo's nebula is not grown in shade.
2. Either Mateo's nebula is grown in shade or it is fired above 1200 degrees.
3. No ledger is stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Mateo's nebula is fired above 1200 degrees.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two ... | This is a disjunctive syllogism. One of the two disjuncts must hold, and the first has been ruled out, so the second stands. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a alloy is checked for hairline cracks, then it is warm-blooded.
2. Celia's alloy is checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, Celia's alloy is warm-blooded.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being checked for hairline cracks is enough to be warm-blooded, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this alloy, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No granite is fed by meltwater.
2. Ada's comet is not checked for hairline cracks.
3. If a comet is checked for hairline cracks, then it is stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ada's comet is not stored below freezing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain i... | This denies the antecedent. Being checked for hairline cracks is sufficient for being stored below freezing, not necessary, so a comet that is not checked for hairline cracks may still be stored below freezing. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Quinn's sparrow is not logged in the registry.
2. No comet is audited annually.
3. If a sparrow is audited annually, then it is logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, Quinn's sparrow is not audited annually.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or thr... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being audited annually guaranteed being logged in the registry, then something that is not logged in the registry cannot be audited annually. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Nadia's violin is sealed against salt water.
2. If a violin is sealed against salt water, then it is audited annually.
3. No submarine is fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, Nadia's violin is audited annually.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or thre... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being sealed against salt water is enough to be audited annually, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this violin, so the consequent follows. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All granites are mapped by survey.
2. No whale is fired above 1200 degrees.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not mapped by survey is not a granite.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This is contraposition. 'All granites are mapped by survey' and 'whatever is not mapped by survey is not a granite' are logically equivalent, so the step preserves the premise exactly. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a aqueduct is repainted each spring, then it is magnetically shielded.
2. Sofia's aqueduct is not repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, Sofia's aqueduct is not magnetically shielded.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end... | This denies the antecedent. Being repainted each spring is sufficient for being magnetically shielded, not necessary, so a aqueduct that is not repainted each spring may still be magnetically shielded.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a turbine is insured against flood, then it is audited annually.
2. Jonas's turbine is not insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, Jonas's turbine is not audited annually.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdi... | This denies the antecedent. Being insured against flood is sufficient for being audited annually, not necessary, so a turbine that is not insured against flood may still be audited annually.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a whale is sealed against salt water, then it is mapped by survey.
2. Hoang's whale is mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, Hoang's whale is sealed against salt water.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict lin... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being sealed against salt water without being mapped by survey; something can be mapped by survey for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All beetles are logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is logged in the registry is a beetle.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This converts a universal claim illicitly. 'All beetles are logged in the registry' leaves room for things that are logged in the registry without being beetles, so the reverse does not hold.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a mammal is warm-blooded, then it is repainted each spring.
2. Keiko's mammal is warm-blooded.
3. No orchid is warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Keiko's mammal is repainted each spring.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end w... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being warm-blooded is enough to be repainted each spring, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this mammal, so the consequent follows. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a submarine is audited annually, then it is load-bearing.
2. Tomas's submarine is not audited annually.
Claimed step: Therefore, Tomas's submarine is not load-bearing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This denies the antecedent. Being audited annually is sufficient for being load-bearing, not necessary, so a submarine that is not audited annually may still be load-bearing.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Mateo's comet is insured against flood.
2. No whale is logged in the registry.
3. If a comet is insured against flood, then it is tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, Mateo's comet is tuned to concert pitch.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or t... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being insured against flood is enough to be tuned to concert pitch, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this comet, so the consequent follows. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a sparrow is audited annually, then it is tuned to concert pitch.
2. If a sparrow is tuned to concert pitch, then it is sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a sparrow is audited annually, then it is sealed against salt water.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic... | This is a hypothetical syllogism. The two conditionals share a middle term, so they compose into a single conditional from the first antecedent to the last consequent.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a kiln is logged in the registry, then it is mapped by survey.
2. No lighthouse is magnetically shielded.
3. Celia's kiln is mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, Celia's kiln is logged in the registry.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sent... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being logged in the registry without being mapped by survey; something can be mapped by survey for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All ferns are rated for deep pressure.
2. All aqueducts are rated for deep pressure.
Claimed step: Therefore, every aqueduct is a fern.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | The middle term is undistributed. Both classes share the property rated for deep pressure, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about aqueducts being ferns.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a comet is stored below freezing, then it is fed by meltwater.
2. Jonas's comet is not fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, Jonas's comet is not stored below freezing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict lin... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being stored below freezing guaranteed being fed by meltwater, then something that is not fed by meltwater cannot be stored below freezing.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All submarines are rated for deep pressure.
2. All violins are rated for deep pressure.
Claimed step: Therefore, every violin is a submarine.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | The middle term is undistributed. Both classes share the property rated for deep pressure, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about violins being submarines.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Every glacier is a ledger.
2. All ledgers are mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, every glacier is mapped by survey.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This chains two universal claims. Every glacier falls inside the class of ledgers, and the second premise applies mapped by survey to all of that class, so it applies to every glacier as well.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No mammal is repainted each spring.
2. All aqueducts are audited annually.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is audited annually is a aqueduct.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This converts a universal claim illicitly. 'All aqueducts are audited annually' leaves room for things that are audited annually without being aqueducts, so the reverse does not hold. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Every monsoon is a whale.
2. All whales are stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, every monsoon is stored below freezing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This chains two universal claims. Every monsoon falls inside the class of whales, and the second premise applies stored below freezing to all of that class, so it applies to every monsoon as well.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Celia's cello is grown in shade or it is checked for hairline cracks.
2. Celia's cello is not grown in shade.
Claimed step: Therefore, Celia's cello is checked for hairline cracks.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a ... | This is a disjunctive syllogism. One of the two disjuncts must hold, and the first has been ruled out, so the second stands.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Lucia's violin is rated for deep pressure.
2. If a violin is rated for deep pressure, then it is tuned to concert pitch.
3. No sparrow is repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, Lucia's violin is tuned to concert pitch.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in ... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being rated for deep pressure is enough to be tuned to concert pitch, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this violin, so the consequent follows. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Celia's whale is tuned to concert pitch or it is magnetically shielded.
2. Celia's whale is tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, Celia's whale is not magnetically shielded.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end wit... | This affirms a disjunct. An inclusive 'or' is satisfied when both disjuncts hold, so confirming one does not rule out the other.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All nebulae are audited annually.
2. All granites are audited annually.
Claimed step: Therefore, every granite is a nebula.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | The middle term is undistributed. Both classes share the property audited annually, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about granites being nebulae.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All sparrows are audited annually.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not audited annually is not a sparrow.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This is contraposition. 'All sparrows are audited annually' and 'whatever is not audited annually is not a sparrow' are logically equivalent, so the step preserves the premise exactly.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All violins are repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is repainted each spring is a violin.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This converts a universal claim illicitly. 'All violins are repainted each spring' leaves room for things that are repainted each spring without being violins, so the reverse does not hold.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Keiko's kiln is repainted each spring or it is sealed against salt water.
2. Keiko's kiln is repainted each spring.
3. No submarine is fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, Keiko's kiln is not sealed against salt water.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain... | This affirms a disjunct. An inclusive 'or' is satisfied when both disjuncts hold, so confirming one does not rule out the other. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Esi's cello is not tuned to concert pitch.
2. No glacier is warm-blooded.
3. Either Esi's cello is tuned to concert pitch or it is sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, Esi's cello is sealed against salt water.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two... | This is a disjunctive syllogism. One of the two disjuncts must hold, and the first has been ruled out, so the second stands. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Omar's submarine is grown in shade or it is stored below freezing.
2. Omar's submarine is grown in shade.
Claimed step: Therefore, Omar's submarine is not stored below freezing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a ver... | This affirms a disjunct. An inclusive 'or' is satisfied when both disjuncts hold, so confirming one does not rule out the other.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a orchid is stored below freezing, then it is repainted each spring.
2. Rafa's orchid is not repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, Rafa's orchid is not stored below freezing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a ... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being stored below freezing guaranteed being repainted each spring, then something that is not repainted each spring cannot be stored below freezing.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a alloy is sealed against salt water, then it is tuned to concert pitch.
2. Farid's alloy is not sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, Farid's alloy is not tuned to concert pitch.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then en... | This denies the antecedent. Being sealed against salt water is sufficient for being tuned to concert pitch, not necessary, so a alloy that is not sealed against salt water may still be tuned to concert pitch.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Jonas's aqueduct is checked for hairline cracks or it is fired above 1200 degrees.
2. Jonas's aqueduct is checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, Jonas's aqueduct is not fired above 1200 degrees.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or thre... | This affirms a disjunct. An inclusive 'or' is satisfied when both disjuncts hold, so confirming one does not rule out the other.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Farid's sparrow is sealed against salt water.
2. If a sparrow is fed by meltwater, then it is sealed against salt water.
3. No kiln is repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, Farid's sparrow is fed by meltwater.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or t... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being fed by meltwater without being sealed against salt water; something can be sealed against salt water for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No beetle is fired above 1200 degrees.
2. If a comet is repainted each spring, then it is logged in the registry.
3. Esi's comet is not logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, Esi's comet is not repainted each spring.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in t... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being repainted each spring guaranteed being logged in the registry, then something that is not logged in the registry cannot be repainted each spring. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No ledger is audited annually.
2. If a comet is insured against flood, then it is warm-blooded.
3. Greta's comet is not warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Greta's comet is not insured against flood.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, t... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being insured against flood guaranteed being warm-blooded, then something that is not warm-blooded cannot be insured against flood. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Tomas's ledger is not load-bearing.
2. If a ledger is sealed against salt water, then it is load-bearing.
3. No cello is warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Tomas's ledger is not sealed against salt water.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three senten... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being sealed against salt water guaranteed being load-bearing, then something that is not load-bearing cannot be sealed against salt water. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a cello is repainted each spring, then it is logged in the registry.
2. Priya's cello is logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, Priya's cello is repainted each spring.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being repainted each spring without being logged in the registry; something can be logged in the registry for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Every monsoon is a beetle.
2. All beetles are checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, every monsoon is checked for hairline cracks.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This chains two universal claims. Every monsoon falls inside the class of beetles, and the second premise applies checked for hairline cracks to all of that class, so it applies to every monsoon as well.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All violins are repainted each spring.
2. All glaciers are repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, every glacier is a violin.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | The middle term is undistributed. Both classes share the property repainted each spring, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about glaciers being violins.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No mammal is repainted each spring.
2. All alloys are magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one alloy is magnetically shielded.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This is the existential fallacy. A universal claim about alloys says what holds of any alloy there is, but it does not assert that a alloy exists, so existence cannot be inferred. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Ada's submarine is warm-blooded or it is insured against flood.
2. Ada's submarine is not warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ada's submarine is insured against flood.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict li... | This is a disjunctive syllogism. One of the two disjuncts must hold, and the first has been ruled out, so the second stands.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Greta's comet is mapped by survey or it is sealed against salt water.
2. Greta's comet is mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, Greta's comet is not sealed against salt water.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a ... | This affirms a disjunct. An inclusive 'or' is satisfied when both disjuncts hold, so confirming one does not rule out the other.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All monsoons are magnetically shielded.
2. All beetles are magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, every beetle is a monsoon.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | The middle term is undistributed. Both classes share the property magnetically shielded, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about beetles being monsoons.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a sparrow is magnetically shielded, then it is load-bearing.
2. If a sparrow is load-bearing, then it is fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a sparrow is magnetically shielded, then it is fed by meltwater.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or th... | This is a hypothetical syllogism. The two conditionals share a middle term, so they compose into a single conditional from the first antecedent to the last consequent.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Every ledger is a monsoon.
2. All monsoons are grown in shade.
Claimed step: Therefore, every ledger is grown in shade.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This chains two universal claims. Every ledger falls inside the class of monsoons, and the second premise applies grown in shade to all of that class, so it applies to every ledger as well.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a nebula is tuned to concert pitch, then it is rated for deep pressure.
2. Rafa's nebula is not rated for deep pressure.
3. No aqueduct is checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, Rafa's nebula is not tuned to concert pitch.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being tuned to concert pitch guaranteed being rated for deep pressure, then something that is not rated for deep pressure cannot be tuned to concert pitch. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Mateo's mammal is fired above 1200 degrees or it is mapped by survey.
2. Mateo's mammal is not fired above 1200 degrees.
Claimed step: Therefore, Mateo's mammal is mapped by survey.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a... | This is a disjunctive syllogism. One of the two disjuncts must hold, and the first has been ruled out, so the second stands.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a comet is sealed against salt water, then it is grown in shade.
2. If a comet is grown in shade, then it is logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a comet is sealed against salt water, then it is logged in the registry.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Ex... | This is a hypothetical syllogism. The two conditionals share a middle term, so they compose into a single conditional from the first antecedent to the last consequent.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No submarine is repainted each spring.
2. All mammals are grown in shade.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one mammal is grown in shade.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This is the existential fallacy. A universal claim about mammals says what holds of any mammal there is, but it does not assert that a mammal exists, so existence cannot be inferred. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a kiln is magnetically shielded, then it is fired above 1200 degrees.
2. Sofia's kiln is fired above 1200 degrees.
Claimed step: Therefore, Sofia's kiln is magnetically shielded.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdic... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being magnetically shielded without being fired above 1200 degrees; something can be fired above 1200 degrees for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Sofia's ledger is fired above 1200 degrees or it is rated for deep pressure.
2. Sofia's ledger is fired above 1200 degrees.
Claimed step: Therefore, Sofia's ledger is not rated for deep pressure.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, t... | This affirms a disjunct. An inclusive 'or' is satisfied when both disjuncts hold, so confirming one does not rule out the other.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No beetle is rated for deep pressure.
2. Priya's nebula is load-bearing.
3. If a nebula is insured against flood, then it is load-bearing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Priya's nebula is insured against flood.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences,... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being insured against flood without being load-bearing; something can be load-bearing for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a orchid is stored below freezing, then it is checked for hairline cracks.
2. Lucia's orchid is not checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, Lucia's orchid is not stored below freezing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, th... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being stored below freezing guaranteed being checked for hairline cracks, then something that is not checked for hairline cracks cannot be stored below freezing.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a monsoon is grown in shade, then it is tuned to concert pitch.
2. Nadia's monsoon is not grown in shade.
Claimed step: Therefore, Nadia's monsoon is not tuned to concert pitch.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict... | This denies the antecedent. Being grown in shade is sufficient for being tuned to concert pitch, not necessary, so a monsoon that is not grown in shade may still be tuned to concert pitch.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Omar's mammal is sealed against salt water or it is warm-blooded.
2. Omar's mammal is not sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, Omar's mammal is warm-blooded.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict ... | This is a disjunctive syllogism. One of the two disjuncts must hold, and the first has been ruled out, so the second stands.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a ledger is magnetically shielded, then it is mapped by survey.
2. Omar's ledger is magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Omar's ledger is mapped by survey.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being magnetically shielded is enough to be mapped by survey, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this ledger, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Priya's cello is fed by meltwater or it is rated for deep pressure.
2. Priya's cello is fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, Priya's cello is not rated for deep pressure.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verd... | This affirms a disjunct. An inclusive 'or' is satisfied when both disjuncts hold, so confirming one does not rule out the other.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All aqueducts are insured against flood.
2. All glaciers are insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, every glacier is a aqueduct.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | The middle term is undistributed. Both classes share the property insured against flood, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about glaciers being aqueducts.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All whales are magnetically shielded.
2. All beetles are magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, every beetle is a whale.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | The middle term is undistributed. Both classes share the property magnetically shielded, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about beetles being whales.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Ada's comet is warm-blooded or it is tuned to concert pitch.
2. Ada's comet is not warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ada's comet is tuned to concert pitch.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This is a disjunctive syllogism. One of the two disjuncts must hold, and the first has been ruled out, so the second stands.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a aqueduct is magnetically shielded, then it is grown in shade.
2. Hoang's aqueduct is not magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Hoang's aqueduct is not grown in shade.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdic... | This denies the antecedent. Being magnetically shielded is sufficient for being grown in shade, not necessary, so a aqueduct that is not magnetically shielded may still be grown in shade.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All beetles are grown in shade.
2. No orchid is insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is grown in shade is a beetle.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This converts a universal claim illicitly. 'All beetles are grown in shade' leaves room for things that are grown in shade without being beetles, so the reverse does not hold. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Ada's submarine is mapped by survey or it is logged in the registry.
2. Ada's submarine is mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ada's submarine is not logged in the registry.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a ... | This affirms a disjunct. An inclusive 'or' is satisfied when both disjuncts hold, so confirming one does not rule out the other.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Greta's lighthouse is sealed against salt water or it is checked for hairline cracks.
2. Greta's lighthouse is not sealed against salt water.
3. No monsoon is mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, Greta's lighthouse is checked for hairline cracks.
Does this step follow from the premises by de... | This is a disjunctive syllogism. One of the two disjuncts must hold, and the first has been ruled out, so the second stands. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Quinn's cello is repainted each spring or it is fired above 1200 degrees.
2. Quinn's cello is repainted each spring.
3. No monsoon is sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, Quinn's cello is not fired above 1200 degrees.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone?... | This affirms a disjunct. An inclusive 'or' is satisfied when both disjuncts hold, so confirming one does not rule out the other. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Greta's fern is fed by meltwater or it is sealed against salt water.
2. Greta's fern is not fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, Greta's fern is sealed against salt water.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a ver... | This is a disjunctive syllogism. One of the two disjuncts must hold, and the first has been ruled out, so the second stands.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Every lighthouse is a glacier.
2. All glaciers are fired above 1200 degrees.
Claimed step: Therefore, every lighthouse is fired above 1200 degrees.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This chains two universal claims. Every lighthouse falls inside the class of glaciers, and the second premise applies fired above 1200 degrees to all of that class, so it applies to every lighthouse as well.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
Formal Logic Step Verification
Single-step deductive reasoning: given premises and a claimed step, explain whether it follows and end with a verdict. Covers six valid forms (modus ponens and tollens, hypothetical and disjunctive syllogism, contraposition, universal chaining) and six named fallacies.
| Rows | 12,000 |
| Domain | formal logic and reasoning |
| Format | data.parquet, one row per example |
| Licence | cc-by-4.0 |
| Built for | supervised fine-tuning (SFT) experiments on Adaption AutoScientist |
Columns
| Column | Description |
|---|---|
original_prompt |
The prompt (user turn) as uploaded. |
original_completion |
The target response as uploaded. |
enhanced_prompt |
Empty in this dataset. |
enhanced_completion |
Empty in this dataset. |
How it was built
Generated programmatically by the author; labels are exact by construction, 50/50 valid and invalid, 35% of items carry an irrelevant distractor premise.
Sources and licence
- Generated by the author (no upstream dataset).
Notes
- Columns
enhanced_prompt,enhanced_completionare empty in this dataset (the Adaption export reserves them for rewritten text).
Loading
from datasets import load_dataset
ds = load_dataset("rodriguescarson/adaption-logic-step-verification-12k-c3", split="train")
import pandas as pd
df = pd.read_parquet("hf://datasets/rodriguescarson/adaption-logic-step-verification-12k-c3/data.parquet")
Published by Carson Rodrigues (Hugging Face, Kaggle).
- Downloads last month
- 64