Datasets:
original_prompt stringlengths 233 468 | original_completion stringlengths 153 320 | enhanced_prompt float64 | enhanced_completion float64 |
|---|---|---|---|
Premises:
1. Every mammal is a ledger.
2. All ledgers are warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, every 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 line. | This chains two universal claims. Every mammal falls inside the class of ledgers, and the second premise applies warm-blooded to all of that class, so it applies to every mammal as well.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No monsoon is mapped by survey.
2. All beetles are rated for deep pressure.
3. All monsoons are rated for deep pressure.
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 rated for deep pressure, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about beetles being monsoons. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No alloy is audited annually.
2. Baruch's aqueduct is fired above 1200 degrees.
3. Either Baruch's aqueduct is fired above 1200 degrees or it is magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Baruch's aqueduct is not magnetically shielded.
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. 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. No mammal is logged in the registry.
2. Either Jonas's orchid is warm-blooded or it is insured against flood.
3. Jonas's orchid is not warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Jonas's orchid is insured against flood.
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. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All aqueducts are fired above 1200 degrees.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one aqueduct 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 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.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No violin is magnetically shielded.
2. All granites are mapped by survey.
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. No glacier is rated for deep pressure.
2. All glaciers are tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not tuned to concert pitch is not a glacier.
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 glaciers are tuned to concert pitch' and 'whatever is not tuned to concert pitch is not a glacier' 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. All monsoons are rated for deep pressure.
2. No glacier is checked for hairline cracks.
3. Every submarine is a monsoon.
Claimed step: Therefore, every submarine 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 ... | This chains two universal claims. Every submarine falls inside the class of monsoons, and the second premise applies rated for deep pressure 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. If a whale is warm-blooded, then it is stored below freezing.
2. No comet is checked for hairline cracks.
3. Rafa's whale is not warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Rafa's whale is not stored below freezing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sent... | This denies the antecedent. Being warm-blooded is sufficient for being stored below freezing, not necessary, so a whale that is not warm-blooded may still be stored below freezing. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No mammal is rated for deep pressure.
2. All submarines are checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one submarine 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 submarines says what holds of any submarine there is, but it does not assert that a submarine 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 monsoon is insured against flood, then it is audited annually.
2. Nadia's monsoon is not insured against flood.
3. No submarine is magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Nadia's monsoon is not audited annually.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two... | This denies the antecedent. Being insured against flood is sufficient for being audited annually, not necessary, so a monsoon that is not insured against flood may still be audited annually. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All beetles are magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is magnetically shielded 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 magnetically shielded' leaves room for things that are magnetically shielded without being beetles, so the reverse does not hold.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All glaciers are magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is magnetically shielded is a glacier.
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 glaciers are magnetically shielded' leaves room for things that are magnetically shielded without being glaciers, so the reverse does not hold.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Every violin is a turbine.
2. All turbines are mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, every violin 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 violin falls inside the class of turbines, and the second premise applies mapped by survey to all of that class, so it applies to every violin as well.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No nebula is fed by meltwater.
2. All turbines are sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one turbine 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 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 turbines are load-bearing.
2. No lighthouse is mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one turbine 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 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. If a ledger is checked for hairline cracks, then it is fed by meltwater.
2. Baruch's ledger is not checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, Baruch's ledger is not fed by meltwater.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end w... | This denies the antecedent. Being checked for hairline cracks is sufficient for being fed by meltwater, not necessary, so a ledger that is not checked for hairline cracks may still be fed by meltwater.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No aqueduct is warm-blooded.
2. All nebulae are logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not logged in the registry is not 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 is contraposition. 'All nebulae are logged in the registry' and 'whatever is not logged in the registry is not a nebula' 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. All beetles are rated for deep pressure.
2. No fern is fired above 1200 degrees.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one beetle 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 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. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No mammal is mapped by survey.
2. All glaciers are tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one glacier 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 glaciers says what holds of any glacier there is, but it does not assert that a glacier 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 granite is repainted each spring, then it is load-bearing.
2. Quinn's granite is load-bearing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Quinn's granite 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 affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being repainted each spring 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. Either Priya's beetle is sealed against salt water or it is tuned to concert pitch.
2. Priya's beetle is sealed against salt water.
3. No turbine is rated for deep pressure.
Claimed step: Therefore, Priya's beetle is not tuned to concert pitch.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic a... | 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 orchid is audited annually, then it is insured against flood.
2. Esi's orchid is audited annually.
Claimed step: Therefore, Esi's 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 modus ponens. The conditional says being audited annually is enough to be insured against flood, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this orchid, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a fern is checked for hairline cracks, then it is mapped by survey.
2. Lucia's fern is mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, Lucia's fern 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 li... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being checked for hairline cracks 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. Either Baruch's comet is tuned to concert pitch or it is grown in shade.
2. Baruch's comet is not tuned to concert pitch.
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. All submarines are audited annually.
2. No submarine is logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one submarine is 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 the existential fallacy. A universal claim about submarines says what holds of any submarine there is, but it does not assert that a submarine exists, so existence cannot be inferred. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Every nebula is a aqueduct.
2. All aqueducts are tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, every nebula 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 nebula falls inside the class of aqueducts, and the second premise applies tuned to concert pitch to all of that class, so it applies to every nebula as well.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All comets are load-bearing.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not load-bearing is not 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 is contraposition. 'All comets are load-bearing' and 'whatever is not load-bearing is not a comet' are logically equivalent, so the step preserves the premise exactly.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a turbine is rated for deep pressure, then it is repainted each spring.
2. Keiko's turbine is repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, Keiko's turbine 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... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being rated for deep pressure without being repainted each spring; something can be repainted each spring for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a beetle is stored below freezing, then it is fired above 1200 degrees.
2. Mateo's beetle is stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Mateo's beetle 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 ... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being stored below freezing is enough to be fired above 1200 degrees, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this beetle, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a kiln is warm-blooded, then it is load-bearing.
2. Dmitri's kiln is not warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Dmitri's kiln 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 warm-blooded is sufficient for being load-bearing, not necessary, so a kiln that is not warm-blooded may still be load-bearing.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a violin is stored below freezing, then it is insured against flood.
2. Ines's violin is insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ines's violin 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 ... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being stored below freezing without being insured against flood; something can be insured against flood for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No orchid is fired above 1200 degrees.
2. If a mammal is mapped by survey, then it is sealed against salt water.
3. If a mammal is sealed against salt water, then it is magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a mammal is mapped by survey, 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. If a granite is insured against flood, then it is logged in the registry.
2. Greta's granite is logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, Greta's granite 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 v... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being insured against flood 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. Either Jonas's ledger is grown in shade or it is logged in the registry.
2. Jonas's ledger is grown in shade.
Claimed step: Therefore, Jonas's ledger 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 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. No aqueduct is fired above 1200 degrees.
2. If a violin is insured against flood, then it is checked for hairline cracks.
3. Ada's violin is checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ada's violin is insured against flood.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Expla... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being insured against flood without being checked for hairline cracks; something can be checked for hairline cracks 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 aqueduct is checked for hairline cracks.
2. All glaciers are stored below freezing.
3. All whales are stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, every whale is a glacier.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict l... | 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 whales being glaciers. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a beetle is checked for hairline cracks, then it is sealed against salt water.
2. Quinn's beetle is sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, Quinn's beetle is checked for hairline cracks.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, th... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being checked for hairline cracks 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. If a nebula is warm-blooded, then it is audited annually.
2. Jonas's nebula is not warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Jonas's nebula 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 denies the antecedent. Being warm-blooded is sufficient for being audited annually, not necessary, so a nebula that is not warm-blooded may still be audited annually.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a cello is sealed against salt water, then it is mapped by survey.
2. Baruch's cello is not sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, Baruch's cello 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 v... | This denies the antecedent. Being sealed against salt water is sufficient for being mapped by survey, not necessary, so a cello that is not sealed against salt water may still be mapped by survey.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No sparrow is mapped by survey.
2. Nadia's granite is not rated for deep pressure.
3. If a granite is stored below freezing, then it is rated for deep pressure.
Claimed step: Therefore, Nadia's granite is not stored below freezing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being stored below freezing guaranteed being rated for deep pressure, then something that is not rated for deep pressure cannot be stored below freezing. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No whale is fed by meltwater.
2. Omar's ledger is not logged in the registry.
3. If a ledger is stored below freezing, then it is logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, Omar's ledger is not stored below freezing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two o... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being stored below freezing guaranteed being logged in the registry, then something that is not logged in the registry cannot be stored below freezing. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Every orchid is a sparrow.
2. All sparrows are rated for deep pressure.
3. No comet is grown in shade.
Claimed step: Therefore, every orchid 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 chains two universal claims. Every orchid falls inside the class of sparrows, and the second premise applies rated for deep pressure to all of that class, so it applies to every orchid as well. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a beetle is audited annually, then it is load-bearing.
2. Omar's beetle is load-bearing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Omar's beetle is 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 affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being audited annually 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. If a whale is magnetically shielded, then it is logged in the registry.
2. Esi's whale is not magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Esi's whale 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 ver... | This denies the antecedent. Being magnetically shielded is sufficient for being logged in the registry, not necessary, so a whale that is not magnetically shielded may still be logged in the registry.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a monsoon is fired above 1200 degrees, then it is warm-blooded.
2. Lucia's monsoon is warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Lucia's monsoon 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 affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being fired above 1200 degrees without being warm-blooded; something can be warm-blooded for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All granites are checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not checked for hairline cracks 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 checked for hairline cracks' and 'whatever is not checked for hairline cracks is not a granite' are logically equivalent, so the step preserves the premise exactly.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a glacier is audited annually, then it is magnetically shielded.
2. If a glacier is magnetically shielded, then it is repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a glacier is audited annually, then it is repainted each spring.
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. If a aqueduct is fired above 1200 degrees, then it is warm-blooded.
2. Keiko's aqueduct is fired above 1200 degrees.
Claimed step: Therefore, Keiko's aqueduct 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 fired above 1200 degrees is enough to be warm-blooded, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this aqueduct, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a turbine is magnetically shielded, then it is warm-blooded.
2. Tomas's turbine is not warm-blooded.
3. No beetle is checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, Tomas's turbine is not magnetically shielded.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or t... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being magnetically shielded guaranteed being warm-blooded, then something that is not warm-blooded cannot be magnetically shielded. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Nadia's lighthouse is not stored below freezing.
2. No monsoon is fired above 1200 degrees.
3. If a lighthouse is logged in the registry, then it is stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Nadia's lighthouse is not logged in the registry.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being logged in the registry guaranteed being stored below freezing, then something that is not stored below freezing cannot be logged in the registry. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Priya's granite is magnetically shielded or it is fed by meltwater.
2. Priya's granite is not magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Priya's granite 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 ve... | 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 sparrows are warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one sparrow 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 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.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Baruch's nebula is stored below freezing or it is magnetically shielded.
2. Baruch's nebula is not stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Baruch's nebula is magnetically shielded.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end... | 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 monsoon is grown in shade, then it is magnetically shielded.
2. Keiko's monsoon is not magnetically shielded.
3. No sparrow is magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Keiko's monsoon is not grown in shade.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or th... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being grown in shade guaranteed being magnetically shielded, then something that is not magnetically shielded cannot be grown in shade. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No kiln is tuned to concert pitch.
2. Hoang's glacier is not grown in shade.
3. Either Hoang's glacier is grown in shade or it is insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, Hoang's glacier is insured against flood.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or t... | 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 fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is fed by meltwater 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. | This converts a universal claim illicitly. 'All ferns are fed by meltwater' leaves room for things that are fed by meltwater without being ferns, so the reverse does not hold.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Greta's nebula is fired above 1200 degrees or it is fed by meltwater.
2. Greta's nebula is not fired above 1200 degrees.
Claimed step: Therefore, Greta's nebula 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... | 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 sealed against salt water, then it is checked for hairline cracks.
2. Priya's cello is not checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, Priya's cello is not sealed against salt water.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentence... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being sealed against salt water guaranteed being checked for hairline cracks, then something that is not checked for hairline cracks cannot be sealed against salt water.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All ferns are load-bearing.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one fern 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 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 alloy is fired above 1200 degrees, then it is stored below freezing.
2. Omar's alloy is not fired above 1200 degrees.
Claimed step: Therefore, Omar's alloy 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... | This denies the antecedent. Being fired above 1200 degrees is sufficient for being stored below freezing, not necessary, so a alloy that is not fired above 1200 degrees may still be stored below freezing.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a alloy is fired above 1200 degrees, then it is logged in the registry.
2. Ines's alloy is logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ines's alloy 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 ver... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being fired above 1200 degrees 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. If a granite is warm-blooded, then it is checked for hairline cracks.
2. Mateo's granite is not checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, Mateo's granite is not warm-blooded.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a v... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being warm-blooded guaranteed being checked for hairline cracks, then something that is not checked for hairline cracks cannot be warm-blooded.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No beetle is load-bearing.
2. If a turbine is checked for hairline cracks, then it is logged in the registry.
3. If a turbine is fired above 1200 degrees, then it is checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a turbine is fired above 1200 degrees, then it is logged in the registry.
Does thi... | 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. All submarines are mapped by survey.
2. No cello is load-bearing.
3. All ferns are mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, every fern 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 mapped by survey, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about ferns being submarines. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No orchid is fed by meltwater.
2. All turbines are rated for deep pressure.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not rated for deep pressure 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 rated for deep pressure' and 'whatever is not rated for deep pressure 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. If a aqueduct is audited annually, then it is fired above 1200 degrees.
2. If a aqueduct is fired above 1200 degrees, then it is fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a aqueduct is audited annually, then it is fed by meltwater.
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. No lighthouse is logged in the registry.
2. All comets are mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one comet 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 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. If a lighthouse is sealed against salt water, then it is repainted each spring.
2. Lucia's lighthouse is sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, Lucia's lighthouse is repainted each spring.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, th... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being sealed against salt water is enough to be repainted each spring, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this lighthouse, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No comet is fed by meltwater.
2. Dmitri's kiln is fired above 1200 degrees.
3. If a kiln is fired above 1200 degrees, then it is mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, Dmitri's kiln is mapped by survey.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentence... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being fired above 1200 degrees is enough to be mapped by survey, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this kiln, so the consequent follows. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All nebulae are warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not warm-blooded is not 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 is contraposition. 'All nebulae are warm-blooded' and 'whatever is not warm-blooded is not a nebula' are logically equivalent, so the step preserves the premise exactly.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All lighthouses are warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is warm-blooded is 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 converts a universal claim illicitly. 'All lighthouses are warm-blooded' leaves room for things that are warm-blooded without being lighthouses, so the reverse does not hold.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Ines's cello is rated for deep pressure.
2. If a cello is repainted each spring, then it is rated for deep pressure.
3. No comet is mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ines's cello is repainted each spring.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three s... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being repainted each spring without being rated for deep pressure; something can be rated for deep pressure 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. Every monsoon is a alloy.
2. All alloys are tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, every monsoon 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 monsoon 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 monsoon as well.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All comets are warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one 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 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.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All kilns are repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is repainted each spring 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 repainted each spring' leaves room for things that are repainted each spring without being kilns, so the reverse does not hold.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All violins are tuned to concert pitch.
2. No aqueduct is sealed against salt water.
3. Every fern is a violin.
Claimed step: Therefore, every fern 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 fern falls inside the class of violins, and the second premise applies tuned to concert pitch to all of that class, so it applies to every fern as well. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a whale is checked for hairline cracks, then it is logged in the registry.
2. If a whale is logged in the registry, then it is tuned to concert pitch.
3. No comet is mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a whale is checked for hairline cracks, then it is tuned to concert pitch.
Does this step ... | 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. If a orchid is load-bearing, then it is repainted each spring.
2. Sofia's orchid is not load-bearing.
3. No ledger is warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Sofia's orchid is not repainted each spring.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, th... | This denies the antecedent. Being load-bearing is sufficient for being repainted each spring, not necessary, so a orchid that is not load-bearing may still be repainted each spring. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Every aqueduct is a lighthouse.
2. No aqueduct is checked for hairline cracks.
3. All lighthouses are sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, every aqueduct is sealed against salt water.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then ... | This chains two universal claims. Every aqueduct falls inside the class of lighthouses, and the second premise applies sealed against salt water to all of that class, so it applies to every aqueduct as well. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a lighthouse is repainted each spring, then it is checked for hairline cracks.
2. If a lighthouse is checked for hairline cracks, then it is sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a lighthouse is repainted each spring, then it is sealed against salt water.
Does this step follow from 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. Either Ada's aqueduct is sealed against salt water or it is fed by meltwater.
2. Ada's aqueduct is not sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ada's aqueduct is fed by meltwater.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with... | 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 whale is warm-blooded, then it is logged in the registry.
2. Tomas's whale is not warm-blooded.
3. No beetle is load-bearing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Tomas's whale is not logged in the registry.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, the... | This denies the antecedent. Being warm-blooded is sufficient for being logged in the registry, not necessary, so a whale that is not warm-blooded may still be logged in the registry. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Baruch's glacier is grown in shade.
2. If a glacier is magnetically shielded, then it is grown in shade.
3. No granite is magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Baruch's glacier is magnetically shielded.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three se... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being magnetically shielded without being grown in shade; something can be grown in shade 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 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. If a cello is fed by meltwater, then it is magnetically shielded.
2. Hoang's cello is not fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, Hoang's cello 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 verdict lin... | This denies the antecedent. Being fed by meltwater is sufficient for being magnetically shielded, not necessary, so a cello that is not fed by meltwater may still be magnetically shielded.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No kiln is fed by meltwater.
2. Baruch's fern is not tuned to concert pitch.
3. Either Baruch's fern is tuned to concert pitch or it is stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Baruch's fern is stored below freezing.
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 Esi's beetle is sealed against salt water or it is fired above 1200 degrees.
2. Esi's beetle is sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, Esi's beetle is not fired above 1200 degrees.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, the... | 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 submarine is grown in shade.
2. Tomas's cello is sealed against salt water.
3. If a cello is fed by meltwater, then it is sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, Tomas's cello is fed by meltwater.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sen... | 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. Every cello is a alloy.
2. No granite is stored below freezing.
3. All alloys are tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, every cello 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 cello 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 cello as well. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a granite is fed by meltwater, then it is insured against flood.
2. Greta's granite is insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, Greta's granite 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 affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being fed by meltwater without being insured against flood; something can be insured against flood for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No beetle is audited annually.
2. If a lighthouse is warm-blooded, then it is load-bearing.
3. Rafa's lighthouse is not warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Rafa's lighthouse is not load-bearing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then e... | This denies the antecedent. Being warm-blooded is sufficient for being load-bearing, not necessary, so a lighthouse that is not warm-blooded may still be load-bearing. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All sparrows are grown in shade.
2. No cello is fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not grown in shade 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 grown in shade' and 'whatever is not grown in shade is not a sparrow' 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. No orchid is fed by meltwater.
2. If a kiln is fed by meltwater, then it is fired above 1200 degrees.
3. Hoang's kiln is fired above 1200 degrees.
Claimed step: Therefore, Hoang's kiln is fed by meltwater.
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 fed by meltwater without being fired above 1200 degrees; something can be fired above 1200 degrees 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. Either Rafa's fern is sealed against salt water or it is logged in the registry.
2. Rafa's fern is sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, Rafa's fern 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 w... | 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 fern is fed by meltwater, then it is grown in shade.
2. If a fern is grown in shade, then it is load-bearing.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a fern is fed by meltwater, then it is load-bearing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end... | 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 aqueduct is fired above 1200 degrees.
2. All alloys are grown in shade.
3. All kilns are grown in shade.
Claimed step: Therefore, every alloy 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. | 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 alloys being kilns. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All ferns are mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one 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 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 beetle is fed by meltwater, then it is logged in the registry.
2. Lucia's beetle is not fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, Lucia's beetle 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 denies the antecedent. Being fed by meltwater is sufficient for being logged in the registry, not necessary, so a beetle that is not fed by meltwater may still be logged in the registry.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | 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", split="train")
import pandas as pd
df = pd.read_parquet("hf://datasets/rodriguescarson/adaption-logic-step-verification-12k/data.parquet")
Published by Carson Rodrigues (Hugging Face, Kaggle).
- Downloads last month
- 53