Datasets:
original_prompt stringlengths 233 468 | original_completion stringlengths 153 320 | enhanced_prompt float64 | enhanced_completion float64 |
|---|---|---|---|
Premises:
1. No turbine is stored below freezing.
2. All monsoons are logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not logged in the registry is not 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. | This is contraposition. 'All monsoons are logged in the registry' and 'whatever is not logged in the registry is not a monsoon' 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 kiln is fired above 1200 degrees, then it is mapped by survey.
2. If a kiln is mapped by survey, then it is rated for deep pressure.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a kiln is fired above 1200 degrees, then it is rated for deep pressure.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? E... | 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 granite is insured against flood, then it is sealed against salt water.
2. If a granite is sealed against salt water, then it is logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a granite is insured against flood, then it is logged in the registry.
Does this step follow from the premises by deduc... | 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. Either Nadia's comet is insured against flood or it is warm-blooded.
2. Nadia's comet is not insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, Nadia's comet 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 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 beetle is tuned to concert pitch, then it is magnetically shielded.
2. Farid's beetle is tuned to concert pitch.
3. No submarine is fired above 1200 degrees.
Claimed step: Therefore, Farid's beetle is magnetically shielded.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being tuned to concert pitch is enough to be magnetically shielded, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this beetle, so the consequent follows. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Ines's comet is tuned to concert pitch.
2. No fern is rated for deep pressure.
3. If a comet is tuned to concert pitch, then it is audited annually.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ines's comet is audited annually.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentenc... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being tuned to concert pitch is enough to be audited annually, 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 ledger is mapped by survey, then it is load-bearing.
2. Greta's ledger is load-bearing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Greta'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 affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being mapped by survey without being load-bearing; something can be load-bearing for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No nebula is rated for deep pressure.
2. All ferns are insured against flood.
3. All monsoons are insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, every monsoon 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 insured against flood, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about monsoons being ferns. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a fern is load-bearing, then it is rated for deep pressure.
2. Celia's fern is load-bearing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Celia's fern is 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 verdict line. | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being load-bearing is enough to be rated for deep pressure, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this fern, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Every submarine is a nebula.
2. All nebulae 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 line. | This chains two universal claims. Every submarine falls inside the class of nebulae, and the second premise applies insured against flood to all of that class, so it applies to every submarine as well.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All alloys are warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not warm-blooded is not a alloy.
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 alloys are warm-blooded' and 'whatever is not warm-blooded is not a alloy' are logically equivalent, so the step preserves the premise exactly.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Nadia's submarine is sealed against salt water or it is logged in the registry.
2. Nadia's submarine is not sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, Nadia's submarine is logged in the registry.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sen... | 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. No ledger is fed by meltwater.
2. If a sparrow is warm-blooded, then it is audited annually.
3. If a sparrow is magnetically shielded, then it is warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a sparrow is magnetically shielded, then it is audited annually.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive... | 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. No cello is rated for deep pressure.
2. All turbines are magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one turbine 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 turbines says what holds of any turbine there is, but it does not assert that a turbine 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 ferns are fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one fern is fed by meltwater.
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 ferns says what holds of any fern there is, but it does not assert that a fern exists, so existence cannot be inferred.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No whale is rated for deep pressure.
2. All beetles are fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not fed by meltwater 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 fed by meltwater' and 'whatever is not fed by meltwater is not a beetle' 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 glacier is stored below freezing, then it is logged in the registry.
2. Rafa's glacier is stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Rafa's glacier 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 ver... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being stored below freezing is enough to be logged in the registry, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this glacier, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a ledger is audited annually, then it is load-bearing.
2. Omar's ledger is not load-bearing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Omar's ledger 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 verdict line. | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being audited annually guaranteed being load-bearing, then something that is not load-bearing cannot be audited annually.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All comets are sealed against salt water.
2. No turbine is magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one comet 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 line. | This is the existential fallacy. A universal claim about comets says what holds of any comet there is, but it does not assert that a comet exists, so existence cannot be inferred. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Keiko's sparrow is not repainted each spring.
2. No granite is magnetically shielded.
3. Either Keiko's sparrow is repainted each spring or it is stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Keiko's sparrow is stored below freezing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Exp... | 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 Lucia's mammal is repainted each spring or it is checked for hairline cracks.
2. Lucia's mammal is not repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, Lucia's mammal is checked for hairline cracks.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences,... | 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. No lighthouse is warm-blooded.
2. All kilns are mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is mapped by survey is a kiln.
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 kilns are mapped by survey' leaves room for things that are mapped by survey without being kilns, 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 fern is insured against flood, then it is warm-blooded.
2. Keiko's fern is insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, Keiko's fern 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 insured against flood is enough to be warm-blooded, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this fern, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All whales are sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not sealed against salt water is not 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. | This is contraposition. 'All whales are sealed against salt water' and 'whatever is not sealed against salt water is not a whale' are logically equivalent, so the step preserves the premise exactly.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a beetle is load-bearing, then it is repainted each spring.
2. If a beetle is repainted each spring, then it is magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a beetle is load-bearing, then it is magnetically shielded.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in tw... | 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. Either Dmitri's whale is mapped by survey or it is magnetically shielded.
2. Dmitri's whale is not mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, Dmitri's whale is magnetically shielded.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdi... | 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 monsoon is a ledger.
2. No fern is tuned to concert pitch.
3. All ledgers are load-bearing.
Claimed step: Therefore, every monsoon is 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 chains two universal claims. Every monsoon falls inside the class of ledgers, and the second premise applies load-bearing to all of that class, so it applies to every monsoon as well. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Sofia's cello is grown in shade.
2. Either Sofia's cello is grown in shade or it is fired above 1200 degrees.
3. No aqueduct is repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, Sofia's cello is not fired above 1200 degrees.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two o... | 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. No lighthouse is grown in shade.
2. Every ledger is a alloy.
3. All alloys are sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, every ledger 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 line. | This chains two universal claims. Every ledger falls inside the class of alloys, and the second premise applies sealed against salt water to all of that class, so it applies to every ledger as well. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All mammals are load-bearing.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not load-bearing is not 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 is contraposition. 'All mammals are load-bearing' and 'whatever is not load-bearing is not a mammal' are logically equivalent, so the step preserves the premise exactly.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a mammal is sealed against salt water, then it is fired above 1200 degrees.
2. Tomas's mammal is not sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, Tomas's mammal is not fired above 1200 degrees.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, ... | This denies the antecedent. Being sealed against salt water is sufficient for being fired above 1200 degrees, not necessary, so a mammal that is not sealed against salt water may still be fired above 1200 degrees.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All lighthouses are logged in the registry.
2. All kilns are logged in the registry.
3. No mammal is fired above 1200 degrees.
Claimed step: Therefore, every lighthouse is a kiln.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict ... | The middle term is undistributed. Both classes share the property logged in the registry, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about lighthouses being kilns. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All mammals are checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one mammal 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 mammals says what holds of any mammal there is, but it does not assert that a mammal exists, so existence cannot be inferred.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No orchid is audited annually.
2. If a orchid is audited annually, then it is warm-blooded.
3. Esi's orchid is audited annually.
Claimed step: Therefore, Esi's orchid is warm-blooded.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verd... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being audited annually is enough to be warm-blooded, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this orchid, so the consequent follows. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Priya's lighthouse is mapped by survey or it is grown in shade.
2. Priya's lighthouse is mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, Priya's lighthouse 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 verdict... | 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 ledgers are tuned to concert pitch.
2. All violins are tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, every violin is a ledger.
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 tuned to concert pitch, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about violins being ledgers.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a comet is warm-blooded, then it is tuned to concert pitch.
2. Esi's comet is not warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Esi's comet 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 line. | This denies the antecedent. Being warm-blooded is sufficient for being tuned to concert pitch, not necessary, so a comet that is not warm-blooded may still be tuned to concert pitch.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a turbine is stored below freezing, then it is fed by meltwater.
2. Nadia's turbine is stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Nadia's turbine is fed by meltwater.
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 stored below freezing is enough to be fed by meltwater, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this turbine, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All ledgers are logged in the registry.
2. All lighthouses are logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, every lighthouse is a ledger.
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 logged in the registry, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about lighthouses being ledgers.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a fern is logged in the registry, then it is repainted each spring.
2. Nadia's fern is logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, Nadia's fern 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 li... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being logged in the registry is enough to be repainted each spring, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this fern, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a lighthouse is fed by meltwater, then it is stored below freezing.
2. If a lighthouse is stored below freezing, then it is audited annually.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a lighthouse is fed by meltwater, then it is audited annually.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Exp... | 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. All whales are fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one whale is fed by meltwater.
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 whales says what holds of any whale there is, but it does not assert that a whale exists, so existence cannot be inferred.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Mateo's lighthouse is warm-blooded or it is magnetically shielded.
2. Mateo's lighthouse is warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Mateo's lighthouse is not magnetically shielded.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a v... | 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 beetles are tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one beetle 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 the existential fallacy. A universal claim about beetles says what holds of any beetle there is, but it does not assert that a beetle exists, so existence cannot be inferred.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All violins are repainted each spring.
2. No mammal is tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one violin 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 line. | This is the existential fallacy. A universal claim about violins says what holds of any violin there is, but it does not assert that a violin 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 Ines's beetle is logged in the registry or it is sealed against salt water.
2. Ines's beetle is not logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ines's beetle is sealed against salt water.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then... | 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. All orchids are tuned to concert pitch.
2. No beetle is tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is tuned to concert pitch 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. | This converts a universal claim illicitly. 'All orchids are tuned to concert pitch' leaves room for things that are tuned to concert pitch without being orchids, 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 granite is logged in the registry, then it is checked for hairline cracks.
2. Keiko's granite is logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, Keiko's granite is checked for hairline cracks.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then ... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being logged in the registry is enough to be checked for hairline cracks, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this granite, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All lighthouses are checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not checked for hairline cracks is not a lighthouse.
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 lighthouses are checked for hairline cracks' and 'whatever is not checked for hairline cracks is not a lighthouse' are logically equivalent, so the step preserves the premise exactly.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All whales are insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is insured against flood 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. | This converts a universal claim illicitly. 'All whales are insured against flood' leaves room for things that are insured against flood without being whales, so the reverse does not hold.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All ferns are grown in shade.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one fern 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 ferns says what holds of any fern there is, but it does not assert that a fern exists, so existence cannot be inferred.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a monsoon is magnetically shielded, then it is checked for hairline cracks.
2. Ada's monsoon is checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ada's monsoon is magnetically shielded.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end wi... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being magnetically shielded without being checked for hairline cracks; something can be checked for hairline cracks for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No beetle is rated for deep pressure.
2. If a alloy is insured against flood, then it is checked for hairline cracks.
3. Tomas's alloy is insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, Tomas's alloy is checked for hairline cracks.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being insured against flood is enough to be checked for hairline cracks, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this alloy, so the consequent follows. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a fern is fired above 1200 degrees, then it is grown in shade.
2. Omar's fern is fired above 1200 degrees.
Claimed step: Therefore, Omar's fern 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 modus ponens. The conditional says being fired above 1200 degrees is enough to be grown in shade, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this fern, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a monsoon is checked for hairline cracks, then it is grown in shade.
2. No cello is stored below freezing.
3. If a monsoon is grown in shade, then it is magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a monsoon is checked for hairline cracks, then it is magnetically shielded.
Does this step follow ... | 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. Either Keiko's kiln is grown in shade or it is insured against flood.
2. Keiko's kiln is not grown in shade.
Claimed step: Therefore, Keiko's kiln 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 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. All turbines are magnetically shielded.
2. No whale is warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not magnetically shielded is not 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. | This is contraposition. 'All turbines are magnetically shielded' and 'whatever is not magnetically shielded is not a turbine' 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. Either Tomas's alloy is load-bearing or it is checked for hairline cracks.
2. Tomas's alloy is not load-bearing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Tomas's 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 verd... | 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. All turbines are sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not sealed against salt water is not 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. | This is contraposition. 'All turbines are sealed against salt water' and 'whatever is not sealed against salt water is not a turbine' are logically equivalent, so the step preserves the premise exactly.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a ledger is repainted each spring, then it is grown in shade.
2. Hoang's ledger is not grown in shade.
Claimed step: Therefore, Hoang's ledger is not 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 line... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being repainted each spring guaranteed being grown in shade, then something that is not grown in shade cannot be repainted each spring.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a violin is audited annually, then it is magnetically shielded.
2. Omar's violin is not magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Omar's violin 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 verdict li... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being audited annually guaranteed being magnetically shielded, then something that is not magnetically shielded cannot be audited annually.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a turbine is tuned to concert pitch, then it is sealed against salt water.
2. Hoang's turbine is not tuned to concert pitch.
3. No nebula is repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, Hoang's turbine is not sealed against salt water.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alon... | This denies the antecedent. Being tuned to concert pitch is sufficient for being sealed against salt water, not necessary, so a turbine that is not tuned to concert pitch may still be sealed against salt water. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | 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. Every sparrow is a cello.
2. All cellos are insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, every sparrow 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 chains two universal claims. Every sparrow falls inside the class of cellos, and the second premise applies insured against flood to all of that class, so it applies to every sparrow as well.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Every aqueduct is a granite.
2. All granites are insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, every aqueduct 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 chains two universal claims. Every aqueduct falls inside the class of granites, and the second premise applies insured against flood to all of that class, so it applies to every aqueduct as well.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a whale is rated for deep pressure, then it is warm-blooded.
2. Tomas's whale is rated for deep pressure.
Claimed step: Therefore, Tomas's whale 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 rated for deep pressure is enough to be warm-blooded, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this whale, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Mateo's orchid is logged in the registry or it is mapped by survey.
2. Mateo's orchid is logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, Mateo'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 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 glacier is fed by meltwater, then it is sealed against salt water.
2. Nadia's glacier is fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, Nadia's glacier 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 verdi... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being fed by meltwater is enough to be sealed against salt water, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this glacier, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Lucia's whale is fed by meltwater.
2. No granite is fired above 1200 degrees.
3. Either Lucia's whale is fed by meltwater or it is repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, Lucia's whale is not repainted each spring.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two o... | 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. No monsoon is repainted each spring.
2. Farid's ledger is not tuned to concert pitch.
3. If a ledger is grown in shade, then it is tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, Farid's ledger is not grown in shade.
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 grown in shade guaranteed being tuned to concert pitch, then something that is not tuned to concert pitch cannot be grown in shade. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No cello is logged in the registry.
2. Either Priya's fern is magnetically shielded or it is checked for hairline cracks.
3. Priya's fern is not magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Priya's fern is checked for hairline cracks.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? E... | 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 ferns are repainted each spring.
2. All violins are repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, every violin 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 repainted each spring, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about violins being ferns.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All nebulae are fired above 1200 degrees.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is fired above 1200 degrees 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. | This converts a universal claim illicitly. 'All nebulae are fired above 1200 degrees' leaves room for things that are fired above 1200 degrees without being nebulae, so the reverse does not hold.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Dmitri's kiln is checked for hairline cracks or it is load-bearing.
2. Dmitri's kiln is not checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, Dmitri's kiln is load-bearing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verd... | 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 cello is insured against flood, then it is audited annually.
2. Sofia's cello is not insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, Sofia's cello 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 verdict lin... | This denies the antecedent. Being insured against flood is sufficient for being audited annually, not necessary, so a cello that is not insured against flood may still be audited annually.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No fern is tuned to concert pitch.
2. If a alloy is insured against flood, then it is sealed against salt water.
3. Dmitri's alloy is not insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, Dmitri's alloy is not sealed against salt water.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Expl... | This denies the antecedent. Being insured against flood is sufficient for being sealed against salt water, not necessary, so a alloy that is not insured against flood may still be sealed against salt water. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All violins are repainted each spring.
2. All mammals are repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, every mammal 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 mammals being violins.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Ines's violin is logged in the registry or it is tuned to concert pitch.
2. No lighthouse is insured against flood.
3. Ines's violin is logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ines's violin is not tuned to concert pitch.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Ex... | 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. If a glacier is warm-blooded, then it is sealed against salt water.
2. Celia's glacier is sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, Celia's glacier 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 affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being warm-blooded without being sealed against salt water; something can be sealed against salt water for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Lucia's mammal is not mapped by survey.
2. If a mammal is load-bearing, then it is mapped by survey.
3. No mammal is repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, Lucia's mammal is not load-bearing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, the... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being load-bearing guaranteed being mapped by survey, then something that is not mapped by survey cannot be load-bearing. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a kiln is tuned to concert pitch, then it is insured against flood.
2. No granite is logged in the registry.
3. Omar's kiln is not tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, Omar's kiln is not insured against flood.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two... | This denies the antecedent. Being tuned to concert pitch is sufficient for being insured against flood, not necessary, so a kiln that is not tuned to concert pitch may still be insured against flood. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Greta's whale is checked for hairline cracks or it is grown in shade.
2. No beetle is mapped by survey.
3. Greta's whale is not checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, Greta's whale is grown in shade.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or... | 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 aqueduct is tuned to concert pitch, then it is fed by meltwater.
2. Esi's aqueduct is fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, Esi's aqueduct 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 affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being tuned to concert pitch 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. Either Keiko's fern is warm-blooded or it is mapped by survey.
2. Keiko's fern is not warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Keiko's fern 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 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 orchid is a alloy.
2. All alloys are tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, every orchid 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 chains two universal claims. Every orchid falls inside the class of alloys, and the second premise applies tuned to concert pitch to all of that class, so it applies to every orchid as well.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a whale is warm-blooded, then it is rated for deep pressure.
2. If a whale is rated for deep pressure, then it is grown in shade.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a whale is warm-blooded, then it is grown in shade.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three se... | 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. All aqueducts are load-bearing.
2. No fern is sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one aqueduct is 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 the existential fallacy. A universal claim about aqueducts says what holds of any aqueduct there is, but it does not assert that a aqueduct 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 lighthouse is grown in shade, then it is rated for deep pressure.
2. If a lighthouse is rated for deep pressure, then it is checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a lighthouse is grown in shade, then it is checked for hairline cracks.
Does this step follow from the premises by dedu... | 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. Lucia's mammal is not checked for hairline cracks.
2. No orchid is load-bearing.
3. Either Lucia's mammal is checked for hairline cracks or it is stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Lucia's mammal is stored below freezing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Expl... | 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. Priya's monsoon is not checked for hairline cracks.
2. Either Priya's monsoon is checked for hairline cracks or it is insured against flood.
3. No comet is insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, Priya's monsoon is insured against flood.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic ... | 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 violins are magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one violin 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 violins says what holds of any violin there is, but it does not assert that a violin exists, so existence cannot be inferred.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Sofia's whale is load-bearing or it is stored below freezing.
2. Sofia's whale is load-bearing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Sofia's whale 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 line. | 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 Farid's violin is logged in the registry or it is stored below freezing.
2. Farid's violin is logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, Farid's violin is not stored below freezing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end ... | 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 ledger is magnetically shielded.
2. Tomas's monsoon is not fed by meltwater.
3. If a monsoon is fed by meltwater, then it is rated for deep pressure.
Claimed step: Therefore, Tomas's monsoon is not rated for deep pressure.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in tw... | This denies the antecedent. Being fed by meltwater is sufficient for being rated for deep pressure, not necessary, so a monsoon that is not fed by meltwater may still be rated for deep pressure. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All granites are tuned to concert pitch.
2. All nebulae are tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, every nebula is 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. | The middle term is undistributed. Both classes share the property tuned to concert pitch, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about nebulae being granites.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a violin is logged in the registry, then it is fed by meltwater.
2. Priya's violin is not fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, Priya's violin 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 verdic... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being logged in the registry guaranteed being fed by meltwater, then something that is not fed by meltwater cannot be logged in the registry.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No cello is logged in the registry.
2. All alloys are checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is checked for hairline cracks is a alloy.
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 alloys are checked for hairline cracks' leaves room for things that are checked for hairline cracks without being alloys, 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 turbine is tuned to concert pitch, then it is grown in shade.
2. Sofia's turbine is not tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, Sofia's turbine 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 verdict... | This denies the antecedent. Being tuned to concert pitch is sufficient for being grown in shade, not necessary, so a turbine that is not tuned to concert pitch may still be grown in shade.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a monsoon is fired above 1200 degrees, then it is grown in shade.
2. Esi's monsoon is not grown in shade.
Claimed step: Therefore, Esi's monsoon is not 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... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being fired above 1200 degrees guaranteed being grown in shade, then something that is not grown in shade cannot be fired above 1200 degrees.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Tomas's monsoon is checked for hairline cracks or it is sealed against salt water.
2. Tomas's monsoon is not checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, Tomas's monsoon is sealed against salt water.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three... | 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 |
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-c5", split="train")
import pandas as pd
df = pd.read_parquet("hf://datasets/rodriguescarson/adaption-logic-step-verification-12k-c5/data.parquet")
Published by Carson Rodrigues (Hugging Face, Kaggle).
- Downloads last month
- 35