Datasets:
original_prompt stringlengths 233 468 | original_completion stringlengths 153 320 | enhanced_prompt float64 | enhanced_completion float64 |
|---|---|---|---|
Premises:
1. All alloys are sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is sealed against salt water 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 sealed against salt water' leaves room for things that are sealed against salt water without being alloys, so the reverse does not hold.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Ada's whale is load-bearing or it is rated for deep pressure.
2. Ada's whale is not load-bearing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ada's whale 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 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 whale is grown in shade.
2. All alloys are stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not stored below freezing 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 stored below freezing' and 'whatever is not stored below freezing is not a alloy' 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 Ines's ledger is insured against flood or it is tuned to concert pitch.
2. Ines's ledger is insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ines's ledger 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 wit... | This affirms a disjunct. An inclusive 'or' is satisfied when both disjuncts hold, so confirming one does not rule out the other.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All whales are repainted each spring.
2. All comets are repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, every comet is a whale.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | The middle term is undistributed. Both classes share the property repainted each spring, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about comets being whales.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All granites are checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is checked for hairline cracks 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. | This converts a universal claim illicitly. 'All granites are checked for hairline cracks' leaves room for things that are checked for hairline cracks without being granites, so the reverse does not hold.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a orchid is warm-blooded, then it is insured against flood.
2. Celia's orchid is not insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, Celia's orchid 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 verdict line. | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being warm-blooded guaranteed being insured against flood, then something that is not insured against flood cannot be warm-blooded.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Every monsoon is a alloy.
2. All alloys are mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, every monsoon 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 monsoon falls inside the class of alloys, and the second premise applies mapped by survey to all of that class, so it applies to every monsoon as well.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Every lighthouse is a ledger.
2. All ledgers are checked for hairline cracks.
3. No glacier is load-bearing.
Claimed step: Therefore, every lighthouse is checked for hairline cracks.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdi... | This chains two universal claims. Every lighthouse falls inside the class of ledgers, and the second premise applies checked for hairline cracks to all of that class, so it applies to every lighthouse as well. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a nebula is stored below freezing, then it is fed by meltwater.
2. Greta's nebula is fed by meltwater.
3. No comet is stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Greta's nebula is stored below freezing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sente... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being stored below freezing without being fed by meltwater; something can be fed by meltwater for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a orchid is rated for deep pressure, then it is fired above 1200 degrees.
2. Rafa's orchid is not rated for deep pressure.
Claimed step: Therefore, Rafa's orchid is not fired above 1200 degrees.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then e... | This denies the antecedent. Being rated for deep pressure is sufficient for being fired above 1200 degrees, not necessary, so a orchid that is not rated for deep pressure may still be fired above 1200 degrees.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a whale is grown in shade, then it is magnetically shielded.
2. Omar's whale is grown in shade.
Claimed step: Therefore, Omar'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 verdict line. | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being grown in shade is enough to be magnetically shielded, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this whale, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a comet is stored below freezing, then it is mapped by survey.
2. Hoang's comet is not stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Hoang's comet 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 verdict lin... | This denies the antecedent. Being stored below freezing is sufficient for being mapped by survey, not necessary, so a comet that is not stored below freezing may still be mapped by survey.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Nadia's kiln is insured against flood or it is rated for deep pressure.
2. Nadia's kiln is insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, Nadia's kiln is not rated for deep pressure.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with... | 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 lighthouse is audited annually, then it is insured against flood.
2. Ines's lighthouse is audited annually.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ines's lighthouse 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 verdic... | 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 lighthouse, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All beetles are grown in shade.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not grown in shade 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 grown in shade' and 'whatever is not grown in shade is not a beetle' are logically equivalent, so the step preserves the premise exactly.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All turbines are fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not fed by meltwater 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 fed by meltwater' and 'whatever is not fed by meltwater 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 granite is audited annually, then it is insured against flood.
2. Hoang's granite is not insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, Hoang's granite is not audited annually.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdi... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being audited annually guaranteed being insured against flood, then something that is not insured against flood cannot be audited annually.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Every sparrow is a glacier.
2. All glaciers are checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, every sparrow is checked for hairline cracks.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This chains two universal claims. Every sparrow falls inside the class of glaciers, and the second premise applies checked for hairline cracks to all of that class, so it applies to every sparrow as well.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a granite is repainted each spring, then it is checked for hairline cracks.
2. Jonas's granite is checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, Jonas's granite is repainted each spring.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then en... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being repainted each spring 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. Either Dmitri's turbine is grown in shade or it is sealed against salt water.
2. Dmitri's turbine is not grown in shade.
3. No kiln is sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, Dmitri's turbine is sealed against salt water.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Expla... | 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 Tomas's submarine is repainted each spring or it is grown in shade.
2. Tomas's submarine is repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, Tomas's submarine 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 ... | This affirms a disjunct. An inclusive 'or' is satisfied when both disjuncts hold, so confirming one does not rule out the other.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Farid's cello is grown in shade.
2. If a cello is grown in shade, then it is fired above 1200 degrees.
3. No granite is stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Farid's cello is fired above 1200 degrees.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sent... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being grown in shade is enough to be fired above 1200 degrees, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this cello, 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 tuned to concert pitch, then it is grown in shade.
2. Greta's ledger is grown in shade.
Claimed step: Therefore, Greta's ledger 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 grown in shade; something can be grown in shade for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All violins are rated for deep pressure.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not rated for deep pressure is not a violin.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This is contraposition. 'All violins are rated for deep pressure' and 'whatever is not rated for deep pressure is not a violin' are logically equivalent, so the step preserves the premise exactly.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a ledger is load-bearing, then it is stored below freezing.
2. Baruch's ledger is not load-bearing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Baruch's ledger 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 denies the antecedent. Being load-bearing is sufficient for being stored below freezing, not necessary, so a ledger that is not load-bearing may still be stored below freezing.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a violin is mapped by survey, then it is checked for hairline cracks.
2. Dmitri's violin is mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, Dmitri's violin 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 ve... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being mapped by survey is enough to be checked for hairline cracks, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this violin, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No aqueduct is fed by meltwater.
2. All nebulae are repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not repainted each spring 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 repainted each spring' and 'whatever is not repainted each spring 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. No violin is logged in the registry.
2. If a granite is fired above 1200 degrees, then it is tuned to concert pitch.
3. Mateo's granite is fired above 1200 degrees.
Claimed step: Therefore, Mateo's granite is tuned to concert pitch.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explai... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being fired above 1200 degrees is enough to be tuned to concert pitch, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this granite, so the consequent follows. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No fern is fired above 1200 degrees.
2. Every submarine is a orchid.
3. All orchids are insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, every submarine is insured against flood.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict li... | This chains two universal claims. Every submarine falls inside the class of orchids, and the second premise applies insured against flood to all of that class, so it applies to every submarine as well. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No kiln is warm-blooded.
2. All glaciers are mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not mapped by survey 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 mapped by survey' and 'whatever is not mapped by survey 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. No orchid is checked for hairline cracks.
2. Either Ines's monsoon is repainted each spring or it is tuned to concert pitch.
3. Ines's monsoon is not repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ines's monsoon is tuned to concert pitch.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone?... | This is a disjunctive syllogism. One of the two disjuncts must hold, and the first has been ruled out, so the second stands. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a whale is fed by meltwater, then it is load-bearing.
2. Rafa's whale is not fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, Rafa's whale 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 fed by meltwater is sufficient for being load-bearing, not necessary, so a whale that is not fed by meltwater may still be load-bearing.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Priya's ledger is repainted each spring or it is fired above 1200 degrees.
2. Priya's ledger is repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, Priya's ledger is not fired above 1200 degrees.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then ... | 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 lighthouse is checked for hairline cracks.
2. If a kiln is checked for hairline cracks, then it is sealed against salt water.
3. If a kiln is fired above 1200 degrees, then it is checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a kiln is fired above 1200 degrees, then it is sealed against salt ... | 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. Priya's granite is not insured against flood.
2. Either Priya's granite is insured against flood or it is load-bearing.
3. No sparrow is logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, Priya's granite is load-bearing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or th... | 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 alloys are checked for hairline cracks.
2. All glaciers are checked for hairline cracks.
3. No cello is fired above 1200 degrees.
Claimed step: Therefore, every glacier is a alloy.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a ver... | The middle term is undistributed. Both classes share the property checked for hairline cracks, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about glaciers being alloys. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Every submarine is a turbine.
2. No mammal is repainted each spring.
3. All turbines are audited annually.
Claimed step: Therefore, every 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 chains two universal claims. Every submarine falls inside the class of turbines, and the second premise applies audited annually 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 turbine is audited annually, then it is magnetically shielded.
2. Priya's turbine is not audited annually.
Claimed step: Therefore, Priya's turbine 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 verdi... | This denies the antecedent. Being audited annually is sufficient for being magnetically shielded, not necessary, so a turbine that is not audited annually may still be magnetically shielded.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No mammal is rated for deep pressure.
2. Sofia's nebula is not stored below freezing.
3. If a nebula is stored below freezing, then it is rated for deep pressure.
Claimed step: Therefore, Sofia's nebula is not rated for deep pressure.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Expl... | This denies the antecedent. Being stored below freezing is sufficient for being rated for deep pressure, not necessary, so a nebula that is not stored below freezing 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 ferns are magnetically shielded.
2. All whales are magnetically shielded.
3. No submarine is insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, every fern is a whale.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | The middle term is undistributed. Both classes share the property magnetically shielded, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about ferns being whales. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Quinn's nebula is grown in shade.
2. If a nebula is audited annually, then it is grown in shade.
3. No lighthouse is insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, Quinn's nebula is audited annually.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, the... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being audited annually 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 mammal is mapped by survey.
2. Either Quinn's ledger is tuned to concert pitch or it is logged in the registry.
3. Quinn's ledger is not tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, Quinn's ledger is logged in the registry.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain ... | 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. Every monsoon is a nebula.
2. All nebulae are magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, every monsoon 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 chains two universal claims. Every monsoon falls inside the class of nebulae, and the second premise applies magnetically shielded to all of that class, so it applies to every monsoon as well.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All granites are warm-blooded.
2. No comet is warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is warm-blooded 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. | This converts a universal claim illicitly. 'All granites are warm-blooded' leaves room for things that are warm-blooded without being granites, so the reverse does not hold. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No sparrow is repainted each spring.
2. All glaciers are mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is mapped by survey 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 mapped by survey' leaves room for things that are mapped by survey without being glaciers, so the reverse does not hold. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Baruch's aqueduct is tuned to concert pitch or it is audited annually.
2. Baruch's aqueduct is not tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, Baruch's aqueduct is audited annually.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end w... | This is a disjunctive syllogism. One of the two disjuncts must hold, and the first has been ruled out, so the second stands.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Omar's nebula is warm-blooded or it is magnetically shielded.
2. Omar's nebula is warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Omar's nebula 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 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. All whales are mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one whale 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 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. Ada's mammal is load-bearing.
2. Either Ada's mammal is load-bearing or it is repainted each spring.
3. No granite is load-bearing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ada's mammal is not repainted each spring.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then... | 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 whale is fired above 1200 degrees.
2. All glaciers are mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one glacier is mapped by survey.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | This 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. No orchid is fired above 1200 degrees.
2. All glaciers are fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one glacier 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 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. No mammal is mapped by survey.
2. Omar's beetle is not repainted each spring.
3. Either Omar's beetle is repainted each spring or it is tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, Omar's beetle is tuned to concert pitch.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in tw... | This is a disjunctive syllogism. One of the two disjuncts must hold, and the first has been ruled out, so the second stands. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Omar's comet is audited annually or it is warm-blooded.
2. Omar's comet is not audited annually.
Claimed step: Therefore, Omar'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 sparrow is rated for deep pressure, then it is insured against flood.
2. If a sparrow is insured against flood, then it is sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a sparrow is rated for deep pressure, then it is sealed against salt water.
Does this step follow from the premises by ded... | 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 sparrow is mapped by survey, then it is fired above 1200 degrees.
2. Baruch's sparrow is not mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, Baruch's sparrow 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... | This denies the antecedent. Being mapped by survey is sufficient for being fired above 1200 degrees, not necessary, so a sparrow that is not mapped by survey may still be fired above 1200 degrees.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Celia's orchid is fed by meltwater or it is checked for hairline cracks.
2. Celia's orchid is not fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, Celia's orchid is checked for hairline cracks.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end ... | This is a disjunctive syllogism. One of the two disjuncts must hold, and the first has been ruled out, so the second stands.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Ines's glacier is stored below freezing or it is warm-blooded.
2. Ines's glacier is stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ines's glacier 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 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 Nadia's whale is repainted each spring or it is magnetically shielded.
2. Nadia's whale is not repainted each spring.
3. No kiln is mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, Nadia's whale is magnetically shielded.
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 mammal is audited annually, then it is fed by meltwater.
2. If a mammal is fed by meltwater, then it is sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a mammal is audited annually, then it is sealed against salt water.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain... | 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 Esi's ledger is sealed against salt water or it is warm-blooded.
2. Esi's ledger is sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, Esi's ledger 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 verdict lin... | 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 granites are stored below freezing.
2. All ferns are stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, every fern 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 stored below freezing, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about ferns being granites.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a turbine is stored below freezing, then it is mapped by survey.
2. Quinn's turbine is not mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, Quinn's turbine 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 verdi... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being stored below freezing guaranteed being mapped by survey, then something that is not mapped by survey cannot be stored below freezing.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a fern is mapped by survey, then it is insured against flood.
2. Farid's fern is insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, Farid'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 affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being mapped by survey 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. All whales are logged in the registry.
2. All glaciers are logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, every glacier is a whale.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then end with a verdict line. | The middle term is undistributed. Both classes share the property logged in the registry, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about glaciers being whales.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Dmitri's nebula is checked for hairline cracks or it is rated for deep pressure.
2. Dmitri's nebula is checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, Dmitri's nebula is not rated for deep pressure.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sen... | 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 Lucia's comet is stored below freezing or it is grown in shade.
2. No submarine is fired above 1200 degrees.
3. Lucia's comet is stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Lucia's comet is not grown in shade.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or ... | 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 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. Baruch's comet is warm-blooded.
2. Either Baruch's comet is warm-blooded or it is rated for deep pressure.
3. No mammal is grown in shade.
Claimed step: Therefore, Baruch's comet is not rated for deep pressure.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sent... | 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. All cellos are checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not checked for hairline cracks is not a cello.
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 cellos are checked for hairline cracks' and 'whatever is not checked for hairline cracks is not a cello' are logically equivalent, so the step preserves the premise exactly.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a comet is rated for deep pressure, then it is audited annually.
2. Esi's comet is audited annually.
Claimed step: Therefore, Esi's comet 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 affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being rated for deep pressure without being audited annually; something can be audited annually for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a submarine is load-bearing, then it is stored below freezing.
2. Esi's submarine is stored below freezing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Esi's submarine 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 affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being load-bearing without being stored below freezing; something can be stored below freezing for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a glacier is fed by meltwater, then it is repainted each spring.
2. If a glacier is repainted each spring, then it is sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a glacier is fed by meltwater, then it is sealed against salt water.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic a... | 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 nebula is insured against flood, then it is warm-blooded.
2. Lucia's nebula is insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, Lucia's nebula 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 nebula, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All orchids are magnetically shielded.
2. No alloy is sealed against salt water.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is magnetically shielded 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 magnetically shielded' leaves room for things that are magnetically shielded 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. All kilns are logged in the registry.
2. All cellos are logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, every cello 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 logged in the registry, but sharing a property does not put one class inside the other, so nothing follows about cellos being kilns.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Farid's orchid is not fed by meltwater.
2. No comet is rated for deep pressure.
3. Either Farid's orchid is fed by meltwater or it is insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, Farid's orchid is insured against flood.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two o... | 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 Greta's whale is magnetically shielded or it is logged in the registry.
2. Greta's whale is magnetically shielded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Greta'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 wit... | This affirms a disjunct. An inclusive 'or' is satisfied when both disjuncts hold, so confirming one does not rule out the other.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Every violin is a submarine.
2. All submarines are repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, every 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 chains two universal claims. Every violin falls inside the class of submarines, and the second premise applies repainted each spring to all of that class, so it applies to every violin as well.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a whale is rated for deep pressure, then it is audited annually.
2. If a whale is audited annually, then it is repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a whale is rated for deep pressure, then it is repainted each spring.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Expl... | 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 cello is stored below freezing, then it is checked for hairline cracks.
2. Celia's cello is not checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, Celia's cello is not stored below freezing.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sentences, then ... | This is modus tollens. Denying the consequent denies the antecedent: if being stored below freezing guaranteed being checked for hairline cracks, then something that is not checked for hairline cracks cannot be stored below freezing.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a granite is logged in the registry, then it is repainted each spring.
2. If a granite is warm-blooded, then it is logged in the registry.
3. No lighthouse is audited annually.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a granite is warm-blooded, then it is repainted each spring.
Does this step follow from the premi... | 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 comet is grown in shade.
2. All sparrows are mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is mapped by survey is 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 converts a universal claim illicitly. 'All sparrows are mapped by survey' leaves room for things that are mapped by survey without being sparrows, 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 aqueduct is checked for hairline cracks, then it is logged in the registry.
2. No violin is tuned to concert pitch.
3. If a aqueduct is mapped by survey, then it is checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a aqueduct is mapped by survey, then it is logged in the registry.
Does this s... | 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 mammal is mapped by survey, then it is grown in shade.
2. If a mammal is grown in shade, then it is logged in the registry.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a mammal is mapped by survey, then it is logged in the registry.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or... | 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 cello is repainted each spring, then it is fired above 1200 degrees.
2. Tomas's cello is repainted each spring.
3. No sparrow is warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Tomas's cello is fired above 1200 degrees.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three... | This is modus ponens. The conditional says being repainted each spring is enough to be fired above 1200 degrees, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this cello, so the consequent follows. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a comet is repainted each spring, then it is audited annually.
2. Lucia's comet is repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, Lucia's comet 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 modus ponens. The conditional says being repainted each spring is enough to be audited annually, and the second premise asserts the antecedent for this comet, so the consequent follows.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No cello is checked for hairline cracks.
2. All turbines are mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one turbine 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 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. Priya's ledger is tuned to concert pitch.
2. If a ledger is rated for deep pressure, then it is tuned to concert pitch.
3. No alloy is repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, Priya's ledger is rated for deep pressure.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in tw... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being rated for deep pressure without being tuned to concert pitch; something can be tuned to concert pitch for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a whale is fired above 1200 degrees, then it is rated for deep pressure.
2. If a whale is rated for deep pressure, then it is mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, if a whale is fired above 1200 degrees, then it is mapped by survey.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone... | 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 whale is insured against flood.
2. Priya's beetle is repainted each spring.
3. If a beetle is fed by meltwater, then it is repainted each spring.
Claimed step: Therefore, Priya's beetle is fed by meltwater.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two or three sente... | This affirms the consequent. The conditional only rules out being fed by meltwater without being repainted each spring; something can be repainted each spring for another reason entirely, so the antecedent does not follow. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Keiko's monsoon is not warm-blooded.
2. If a monsoon is warm-blooded, then it is sealed against salt water.
3. No ledger is tuned to concert pitch.
Claimed step: Therefore, Keiko's monsoon is not sealed against salt water.
Does this step follow from the premises by deductive logic alone? Explain in two o... | This denies the antecedent. Being warm-blooded is sufficient for being sealed against salt water, not necessary, so a monsoon that is not warm-blooded 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. No comet is tuned to concert pitch.
2. All lighthouses are rated for deep pressure.
Claimed step: Therefore, at least one lighthouse 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 lighthouses says what holds of any lighthouse there is, but it does not assert that a lighthouse exists, so existence cannot be inferred. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All cellos are insured against flood.
Claimed step: Therefore, anything that is not insured against flood is not a cello.
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 cellos are insured against flood' and 'whatever is not insured against flood is not a cello' are logically equivalent, so the step preserves the premise exactly.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Priya's fern is mapped by survey or it is logged in the registry.
2. Priya's fern is mapped by survey.
Claimed step: Therefore, Priya'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 with a verdict l... | 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 whale is load-bearing.
2. All beetles are rated for deep pressure.
Claimed step: Therefore, everything that is rated for deep pressure 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 rated for deep pressure' leaves room for things that are rated for deep pressure without being beetles, so the reverse does not hold. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. If a alloy is fed by meltwater, then it is insured against flood.
2. Celia's alloy is not fed by meltwater.
Claimed step: Therefore, Celia's alloy is not 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 lin... | This denies the antecedent. Being fed by meltwater is sufficient for being insured against flood, not necessary, so a alloy that is not fed by meltwater may still be insured against flood.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. All nebulae are logged in the registry.
2. All orchids are logged in the registry.
3. No ledger is checked for hairline cracks.
Claimed step: Therefore, every nebula 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 l... | 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 nebulae being orchids. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is invalid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. No granite is fired above 1200 degrees.
2. Ada's nebula is not warm-blooded.
3. If a nebula is audited annually, then it is warm-blooded.
Claimed step: Therefore, Ada's nebula is not audited annually.
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 audited annually guaranteed being warm-blooded, then something that is not warm-blooded cannot be audited annually. The extra premise plays no part in this step.
Verdict: the step is valid. | null | null |
Premises:
1. Either Greta's submarine is load-bearing or it is grown in shade.
2. Greta's submarine is not load-bearing.
Claimed step: Therefore, Greta's submarine 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 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-c2", split="train")
import pandas as pd
df = pd.read_parquet("hf://datasets/rodriguescarson/adaption-logic-step-verification-12k-c2/data.parquet")
Published by Carson Rodrigues (Hugging Face, Kaggle).
- Downloads last month
- 56