zero_dev.json

[
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Consumer advocate : there is no doubt that the government is responsible for the increased cost of gasoline, because the government's policies have significantly increased consumer demand for fuel, and as a result of increasing demand, the price of gasoline has risen steadily.\nPremise1: The government can bear responsibility for that which it indirectly causes.\nPremise2: Consumer demand for gasoline cannot increase without causing gasoline prices to increase.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Consumer advocate : there is no doubt that the government partly leads to the increased cost of gasoline, because the government's policies have significantly increased consumer demand for fuel, and as a result of increasing demand, the price of gasoline has risen steadily undoubtedly.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3968",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the consumer advocate's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Consumer demand for gasoline cannot increase without causing gasoline prices to increase.",
            "O": "Premise1: The government can bear responsibility for that which it indirectly causes.",
            "P": "Statement1: Consumer advocate : there is no doubt that the government is responsible for the increased cost of gasoline, because the government's policies have significantly increased consumer demand for fuel, and as a result of increasing demand, the price of gasoline has risen steadily."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: To suit the needs of corporate clients, advertising agencies have successfully modified a strategy originally developed for political campaigns. Statement2: This strategy aims to provide clients with free publicity and air time by designing an advertising campaign that is controversial, thus drawing prime-time media coverage and evoking public comment by officials.\nPremise1: The usefulness of an advertising campaign is based solely on the degree to which the campaign's advertisements persuade their audiences.\nPremise2: Advertising agencies that specialize in campaigns for corporate clients are not usually chosen for political campaigns.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: To suit the needs of corporate clients, advertising agencies have successfully modified a strategy originally developed for political campaigns. Statement2: This strategy aims to provide clients with free publicity and air time by designing an advertising campaign that is controversial, thus drawing prime-time media coverage and evoking public comment by officials .often such advertising agencies are chosen as partners for political campaigns.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_316",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The statements above, if true, most seriously undermine which one of the following assertions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Advertising agencies that specialize in campaigns for corporate clients are not usually chosen for political campaigns.",
            "O": "Premise1: The usefulness of an advertising campaign is based solely on the degree to which the campaign's advertisements persuade their audiences.",
            "P": "Statement1: To suit the needs of corporate clients, advertising agencies have successfully modified a strategy originally developed for political campaigns. Statement2: This strategy aims to provide clients with free publicity and air time by designing an advertising campaign that is controversial, thus drawing prime-time media coverage and evoking public comment by officials."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Consumer magazine : because front-loading washers use less water than top-loading washers, ordinary powder detergent does not dissolve readily in front-loading washers. Statement2: So, to get clothes really clean in a front-loading machine you need to use a detergent formulated especially for front-loading washers, instead of ordinary powder detergent.\nPremise1: A laundry detergent does not get clothes really clean in a washer unless it dissolves readily in it.\nPremise2: Washers that use more water get clothes cleaner than those that use less.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Consumer magazine : because front-loading washers use less water than top-loading washers, ordinary powder detergent can not play a great role in little water. Statement2: So, to get clothes really clean in a front-loading machine you need to wash them again.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4399",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument in the consumer magazine?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Washers that use more water get clothes cleaner than those that use less.",
            "O": "Premise1: A laundry detergent does not get clothes really clean in a washer unless it dissolves readily in it.",
            "P": "Statement1: Consumer magazine : because front-loading washers use less water than top-loading washers, ordinary powder detergent does not dissolve readily in front-loading washers. Statement2: So, to get clothes really clean in a front-loading machine you need to use a detergent formulated especially for front-loading washers, instead of ordinary powder detergent."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: The dean of computing must be respected by the academic staff and be competent to oversee the use of computers on campus. Statement2: The only deans whom academics respect are those who hold doctoral degrees, and only someone who really knows about computers can competently oversee the use of computers on campus. Furthermore, the board of trustees has decided that the dean of computing must be selected from among this university's staff. Statement3: Therefore, the dean of computing must be a professor from this university's computer science department.\nPremise1: Among this university's staff members with doctoral degrees, only those in the computer science department really know about computers.\nPremise2: At this university, every professor who holds a doctoral degree in computer science really knows about computers.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The dean of computing must be respected by the academic staff and be competent to oversee the use of computers on campus. Statement2: The only deans whom academics respect are those who hold doctoral degrees, and only someone who really knows about computers can competently oversee the use of computers on campus. Furthermore, the board of trustees has decided that the dean of computing must be selected from among this university's staff. Statement4: Therefore, the dean of computing must be a professor from this university who holds a doctoral degree in computer science",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2130",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: At this university, every professor who holds a doctoral degree in computer science really knows about computers.",
            "O": "Premise1: Among this university's staff members with doctoral degrees, only those in the computer science department really know about computers.",
            "P": "Statement1: The dean of computing must be respected by the academic staff and be competent to oversee the use of computers on campus. Statement2: The only deans whom academics respect are those who hold doctoral degrees, and only someone who really knows about computers can competently oversee the use of computers on campus. Furthermore, the board of trustees has decided that the dean of computing must be selected from among this university's staff. Statement3: Therefore, the dean of computing must be a professor from this university's computer science department."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Consumer advocate : ephedra is a naturally occurring compound that some people use as a weight-loss aid. Statement2: Recently, the government prohibited the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedra on the grounds that ephedra has been shown to have grave side effects. This prohibition is unreasonable. Statement3: Echinacea is another natural compound that has been shown to have side effects, yet echinacea is widely available at health food stores.\nPremise1: The side effects of echinacea and ephedra are comparably serious.\nPremise2: Before the prohibition, ephedra had been available in health food stores.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Consumer advocate : ephedra is a naturally occurring compound that some people use as a weight-loss aid. Statement2: Recently, the government prohibited the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedra on the grounds that ephedra has not been shown whether to have grave side effects. This prohibition is unreasonable. Statement4: Echinacea is another natural compound that has been shown to have side effects, yet echinacea is widely available at health food stores.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1423",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The consumer advocate's argument depends on which of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Before the prohibition, ephedra had been available in health food stores.",
            "O": "Premise1: The side effects of echinacea and ephedra are comparably serious.",
            "P": "Statement1: Consumer advocate : ephedra is a naturally occurring compound that some people use as a weight-loss aid. Statement2: Recently, the government prohibited the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedra on the grounds that ephedra has been shown to have grave side effects. This prohibition is unreasonable. Statement3: Echinacea is another natural compound that has been shown to have side effects, yet echinacea is widely available at health food stores."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not require surgery, are given follow-up x-rays because their orthopedists are concerned about possibly having misjudged the stability of the fracture. Statement2: When a number of follow-up x-rays were reviewed, however, all the fractures that had initially been judged stable were found to have healed correctly. Statement3: Therefore, it is a waste of money to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable.\nPremise1: X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several hospitals were reviewed.\nPremise2: Doctors who are general practitioners rather than orthopedists are less likely than orthopedists to judge the stability of an ankle fracture correctly.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not require surgery, therefore, many general doctors do not order an x-ray to patients with stable ankle fractures in order to avoid wasting medical resources. Statement2: When a number of follow-up x-rays were reviewed, however, most of the fractures that had initially been judged stable were found to haven't healed correctly. Statement3: Therefore, it is necessary to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_594",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Doctors who are general practitioners rather than orthopedists are less likely than orthopedists to judge the stability of an ankle fracture correctly.",
            "O": "Premise1: X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several hospitals were reviewed.",
            "P": "Statement1: Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not require surgery, are given follow-up x-rays because their orthopedists are concerned about possibly having misjudged the stability of the fracture. Statement2: When a number of follow-up x-rays were reviewed, however, all the fractures that had initially been judged stable were found to have healed correctly. Statement3: Therefore, it is a waste of money to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: More and more law firms specializing in corporate taxes are paid on a contingency-fee basis. Statement2: Under this arrangement, if a case is won, the firm usually receives more than it would have received if it had been paid on the alternate hourly rate basis. If the case is lost, the firm receives nothing. Statement3: Most firms are likely to make more under the contingency-fee arrangement.\nPremise1: Since the majority of firms specialize in certain kinds of cases, they are able to assess accurately their chances of winning each potential case\nPremise2: Firms working under the contingency-fee arrangement take in fewer cases per year than do firms working under the hourly rate arrangement.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Less and less law firms specializing in corporate taxes are paid on a contingency-fee basis. Statement2: Under this arrangement, if a case is won, the firm usually receives more than it would have received if it had been paid on the alternate hourly rate basis. If the case is lost, the firm receives nothing. Statement4: Most firms are likely to make less under the contingency-fee arrangement.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_3979",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the prediction above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Firms working under the contingency-fee arrangement take in fewer cases per year than do firms working under the hourly rate arrangement.",
            "O": "Premise1: Since the majority of firms specialize in certain kinds of cases, they are able to assess accurately their chances of winning each potential case",
            "P": "Statement1: More and more law firms specializing in corporate taxes are paid on a contingency-fee basis. Statement2: Under this arrangement, if a case is won, the firm usually receives more than it would have received if it had been paid on the alternate hourly rate basis. If the case is lost, the firm receives nothing. Statement3: Most firms are likely to make more under the contingency-fee arrangement."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: It is popularly believed that a poem has whatever meaning is assigned to it by the reader. Statement2: But objective evaluation of poetry is possible only if this popular belief is false ; for the aesthetic value of a poem can not be discussed unless it is possible for at least two readers to agree on the correct interpretation of the poem.\nPremise1: A given poem can be objectively evaluated only if the poem's aesthetic value can be discussed.\nPremise2: If two readers agree about the meaning of a given poem, that ensures that an objective evaluation of the poem can be made.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: It is popularly believed that a poem has whatever meaning is assigned to it by the reader. Statement2: But objective evaluation of poetry is possible only if this popular belief is false ; for the aesthetic value of a poem can be verified when it is possible for at least two readers to agree on the correct interpretation of the poem.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4104",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: If two readers agree about the meaning of a given poem, that ensures that an objective evaluation of the poem can be made.",
            "O": "Premise1: A given poem can be objectively evaluated only if the poem's aesthetic value can be discussed.",
            "P": "Statement1: It is popularly believed that a poem has whatever meaning is assigned to it by the reader. Statement2: But objective evaluation of poetry is possible only if this popular belief is false ; for the aesthetic value of a poem can not be discussed unless it is possible for at least two readers to agree on the correct interpretation of the poem."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Critic : rock music is musically bankrupt and socially destructive, but at least the album covers of rock lps from the 1960s and 1970s often featured innovative visual art. Statement2: But now, since the success of digital music has almost ended the production of lps, rock music has nothing going for it.\nPremise1: Digital music is not distributed with accompanying innovative visual art.\nPremise2: Although very few lps are produced today, most of these are rock lps.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Critic : rock music is musically bankrupt and socially destructive, but at least the album covers of rock lps from the 1960s and 1970s often featured innovative visual art. Statement2: And now, although the success of digital music has almost ended the production of lps, rock music still has something going for it.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1182",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the critic's argument relies?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Although very few lps are produced today, most of these are rock lps.",
            "O": "Premise1: Digital music is not distributed with accompanying innovative visual art.",
            "P": "Statement1: Critic : rock music is musically bankrupt and socially destructive, but at least the album covers of rock lps from the 1960s and 1970s often featured innovative visual art. Statement2: But now, since the success of digital music has almost ended the production of lps, rock music has nothing going for it."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Music critic : fewer and fewer musicians are studying classical music, decreasing the likelihood that those with real aptitude for such music will be performing it. Audiences who hear these performances will not appreciate classical music's greatness and will thus decamp to other genres. Statement2: So to maintain classical music's current meager popularity, we must encourage more young musicians to enter the field.\nPremise1: Most people who appreciate classical music come to do so through old recordings rather than live performances.\nPremise2: It is possible to enjoy the music in a particular genre even when it is performed by musicians who are not ideally suited for that genre.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Music critic : fewer and fewer musicians that are suitable for classical music genres are studying classical music. Audiences who hear these live performances will not appreciate classical music's greatness and will thus decamp to other genres. Statement3: So to maintain live performances of classical music's current meager popularity, we must encourage more young musicians that are suitable for classical music genres to enter the field.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_2941",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most weakens the music critic's reasoning?",
            "Om": "Premise2: It is possible to enjoy the music in a particular genre even when it is performed by musicians who are not ideally suited for that genre.",
            "O": "Premise1: Most people who appreciate classical music come to do so through old recordings rather than live performances.",
            "P": "Statement1: Music critic : fewer and fewer musicians are studying classical music, decreasing the likelihood that those with real aptitude for such music will be performing it. Audiences who hear these performances will not appreciate classical music's greatness and will thus decamp to other genres. Statement2: So to maintain classical music's current meager popularity, we must encourage more young musicians to enter the field."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods when the darfir republic's currency, the pundra, was weak : its value was unusually low relative to the world's most stable currencies. Both times a weak pundra made darfir's manufactured products a bargain on world markets, and darfir's exports were up substantially. Statement2: Now some politicians are saying that, in order to cause another similarly sized increase in exports, the government should allow the pundra to become weak again.\nPremise1: After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels.\nPremise2: A sharp improvement in the efficiency of darfir's manufacturing plants would make darfir's products a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods when the darfir republic's currency, the pundra, was weak : its value was unusually low relative to the world's most stable currencies. Both times a weak pundra made darfir's manufactured products a bargain on world markets, and darfir's exports were up substantially. But imports of darfur have fallen sharply. Statement3: Now some politicians are saying that, in order to cause another similarly sized increase in exports, the government should allow the pundra to become weak again.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_939",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, provides the government with the strongest grounds to doubt that the politicians' recommendation, if followed, will achieve its aim?",
            "Om": "Premise2: A sharp improvement in the efficiency of darfir's manufacturing plants would make darfir's products a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies.",
            "O": "Premise1: After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, darfir's manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels.",
            "P": "Statement1: Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods when the darfir republic's currency, the pundra, was weak : its value was unusually low relative to the world's most stable currencies. Both times a weak pundra made darfir's manufactured products a bargain on world markets, and darfir's exports were up substantially. Statement2: Now some politicians are saying that, in order to cause another similarly sized increase in exports, the government should allow the pundra to become weak again."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Educator : some experimental educational programs, based on the principle that children's first education should take place at home, instruct parents in how to be their child's\" first teacher. This shows that these programs are successful and should be expanded. Statement2: The school performance of the children in these programs is better than average.\nPremise1: Most of the parents participating in the programs have prior experience as educators.\nPremise2: Some children who did not participate in the programs performed exceptionally well in school.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Educator : some experimental educational programs, based on the principle that children's first education should take place at home, instruct parents without educational experience in how to be their child's\" first teacher. This shows that these programs are successful and should be expanded. Statement3: The school performance of the children in these programs is better than average.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1248",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the educator's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Some children who did not participate in the programs performed exceptionally well in school.",
            "O": "Premise1: Most of the parents participating in the programs have prior experience as educators.",
            "P": "Statement1: Educator : some experimental educational programs, based on the principle that children's first education should take place at home, instruct parents in how to be their child's\" first teacher. This shows that these programs are successful and should be expanded. Statement2: The school performance of the children in these programs is better than average."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Super express shipping company has implemented a new distribution system that can get almost every package to its destination the day after it is sent. The company worries that this more efficient system will result in lower sales of its premium next-day delivery service, because its two day service will usually arrive the following day anyway. Statement2: The company plans to encourage sales of its next-day service by intentionally delaying delivery of its two-day packages so that they will not be delivered the following day, even if the package arrives at its destination city in time for next-day delivery.\nPremise1: Deliberate delay of packages will not affect the company's image in a way that significantly reduces its ability to attract and retain customers\nPremise2: The overnight service is too expensive to be attractive to most customers currently\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Super express shipping company has paused to implemente a new distribution system that can get almost every package to its destination the day after it is sent. The company worries that this more efficient system will result in lower sales of its premium next-day delivery service, because its two day service will usually arrive the following day anyway. Statement3: The company plans to encourage sales of its next-day service by stopping accelerating delivery of its two-day packages so that they will not be delivered the following day, leaving the package arriving at its destination city overnight for next-day delivery.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_4022",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The company's plan assumes that",
            "Om": "Premise2: The overnight service is too expensive to be attractive to most customers currently",
            "O": "Premise1: Deliberate delay of packages will not affect the company's image in a way that significantly reduces its ability to attract and retain customers",
            "P": "Statement1: Super express shipping company has implemented a new distribution system that can get almost every package to its destination the day after it is sent. The company worries that this more efficient system will result in lower sales of its premium next-day delivery service, because its two day service will usually arrive the following day anyway. Statement2: The company plans to encourage sales of its next-day service by intentionally delaying delivery of its two-day packages so that they will not be delivered the following day, even if the package arrives at its destination city in time for next-day delivery."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: The photographs that the store developed were quite unsatisfactory. Statement2: The customer claims to have handled the film correctly. Neither the film nor the camera was defective. If a store does not process pictures properly, the customer is owed a refund, so if the customer's claim is correct, the store owes her a refund.\nPremise1: If neither the film nor the camera was defective, and the customer handled the film correctly, then the store processed it improperly.\nPremise2: If the customer handled the film incorrectly, that is what caused the photographs that the store developed to be unsatisfactory.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The photographs that the store developed were quite unsatisfactory. Statement2: The customer doesn't claim to have handled the film correctly. The camera wasn't defective. If a store claims to have processed pictures properly, the customer is not owed a refund, so if the store's claim is correct, the store doesn't owe her a refund.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_2437",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument relies on assuming which one of the following?",
            "Om": "Premise2: If the customer handled the film incorrectly, that is what caused the photographs that the store developed to be unsatisfactory.",
            "O": "Premise1: If neither the film nor the camera was defective, and the customer handled the film correctly, then the store processed it improperly.",
            "P": "Statement1: The photographs that the store developed were quite unsatisfactory. Statement2: The customer claims to have handled the film correctly. Neither the film nor the camera was defective. If a store does not process pictures properly, the customer is owed a refund, so if the customer's claim is correct, the store owes her a refund."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Human intelligence is not possible without human emotions. Statement2: A computer is something that can never have emotions, so for that reason alone a computer will never be able to display intelligence.\nPremise1: Being intelligent requires the capacity to have emotions.\nPremise2: Someone or something is intelligent only if it can identify its emotions.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Human intelligence is not possible without identifying their emotions. Statement2: A computer is something that can never indentify emotions, so for that reason alone a computer will never be able to display intelligence.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2644",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Someone or something is intelligent only if it can identify its emotions.",
            "O": "Premise1: Being intelligent requires the capacity to have emotions.",
            "P": "Statement1: Human intelligence is not possible without human emotions. Statement2: A computer is something that can never have emotions, so for that reason alone a computer will never be able to display intelligence."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: The miscarriage of justice in the barker case was due to the mistaken views held by some of the forensic scientists involved in the case, who believed that they owed allegiance only to the prosecuting lawyers. Statement2: Justice was thwarted because these forensic scientists failed to provide evidence impartially to both the defense and the prosecution. Statement3: Hence it is not forensic evidence in general that should be condemned for this injustice.\nPremise1: Most forensic scientists acknowledge a professional obligation to provide evidence impartially to both the defense and the prosecution.\nPremise2: Many instances of injustice in court cases are not of the same type as that which occurred in the barker case.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The miscarriage of justice in the barker case was due to the mistaken views held by some of the forensic scientists involved in the case, who believed that they owed allegiance only to the prosecuting lawyers. Statement2: Justice was thwarted because these forensic scientists failed to provide evidence impartially to both the defense and the prosecution. Statement3: Hence this injustice must be in other cases too, because these forensic scientists have provided much evidence for them.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_3914",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Many instances of injustice in court cases are not of the same type as that which occurred in the barker case.",
            "O": "Premise1: Most forensic scientists acknowledge a professional obligation to provide evidence impartially to both the defense and the prosecution.",
            "P": "Statement1: The miscarriage of justice in the barker case was due to the mistaken views held by some of the forensic scientists involved in the case, who believed that they owed allegiance only to the prosecuting lawyers. Statement2: Justice was thwarted because these forensic scientists failed to provide evidence impartially to both the defense and the prosecution. Statement3: Hence it is not forensic evidence in general that should be condemned for this injustice."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Naturalist : sent2: the recent claims that the tasmanian tiger is not extinct are false. Statement2: The tasmanian tiger's natural habitat was taken over by sheep farming decades ago, resulting in the animal's systematic elimination from the area. Since then naturalists working in the region have discovered no hard evidence of its survival, such as carcasses or tracks. Statement3: In spite of alleged sightings of the animal, the tasmanian tiger no longer exists.\nPremise1: The tasmanian tiger did not move and adapt to a different region in response to the loss of habitat.\nPremise2: Every naturalist working in the tasmanian tiger's natural habitat has looked systematically for evidence of the tiger's survival.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Naturalist : Statement2: The recent claims that the tasmanian tiger is not extinct are false. Statement3: The tasmanian tiger's natural habitat was taken over by sheep farming decades ago, resulting in the animal's systematic elimination from the area. Since then naturalists working in the region have discovered no hard evidence of its survival, such as carcasses or tracks and the tasmanian tiger couldn't move and adapt to a different region in response to the loss of habitat. Statement5: In spite of alleged sightings of the animal, the tasmanian tiger no longer exists.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4467",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the naturalist's argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Every naturalist working in the tasmanian tiger's natural habitat has looked systematically for evidence of the tiger's survival.",
            "O": "Premise1: The tasmanian tiger did not move and adapt to a different region in response to the loss of habitat.",
            "P": "Statement1: Naturalist : sent2: the recent claims that the tasmanian tiger is not extinct are false. Statement2: The tasmanian tiger's natural habitat was taken over by sheep farming decades ago, resulting in the animal's systematic elimination from the area. Since then naturalists working in the region have discovered no hard evidence of its survival, such as carcasses or tracks. Statement3: In spite of alleged sightings of the animal, the tasmanian tiger no longer exists."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Tax reformer : the proposed tax reform legislation is being criticized by political groups on the right for being too specific and by political groups on the left for being too vague. Statement2: Since one and the same statement can not be both too specific and too vague, the criticisms just go to show that the legislation is framed just as it should be.\nPremise1: The proposed legislation is not made up of a set of statements some of which are overly specific and some of which are overly vague.\nPremise2: The proposed legislation as it is framed was not meant to satisfy either political groups on the right or political groups on the left.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Tax reformer : the proposed tax reform legislation is being criticized by political groups on the right for being too specific and by political groups on the left for being too vague. Statement2: Since one and the same statement can not be both too specific and too vague, the criticisms just go to show that the legislation satisfy political groups just as it should be.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_390",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The proposed legislation as it is framed was not meant to satisfy either political groups on the right or political groups on the left.",
            "O": "Premise1: The proposed legislation is not made up of a set of statements some of which are overly specific and some of which are overly vague.",
            "P": "Statement1: Tax reformer : the proposed tax reform legislation is being criticized by political groups on the right for being too specific and by political groups on the left for being too vague. Statement2: Since one and the same statement can not be both too specific and too vague, the criticisms just go to show that the legislation is framed just as it should be."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: If one wants to succeed, then one should act as though one were genuinely confident about one's abilities, even if one actually distrusts one's skills. Statement2: Success is much more easily obtained by those who genuinely believe themselves capable of succeeding than by those filled with self-doubts.\nPremise1: Genuine confidence is often a by-product of pretended self-confidence.\nPremise2: Those who convince others that they are capable of succeeding usually have few self-doubts.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: If one wants to succeed, then one should act as though one were genuinely confident about one's abilities, this will allow others to believe that they can succeed, and in this way gets more resources that are conducive to success. Statement2: Success is much more easily obtained by those who genuinely believe themselves capable of succeeding than by those filled with self-doubts.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_168",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following statements, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Those who convince others that they are capable of succeeding usually have few self-doubts.",
            "O": "Premise1: Genuine confidence is often a by-product of pretended self-confidence.",
            "P": "Statement1: If one wants to succeed, then one should act as though one were genuinely confident about one's abilities, even if one actually distrusts one's skills. Statement2: Success is much more easily obtained by those who genuinely believe themselves capable of succeeding than by those filled with self-doubts."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: A company has developed a new sensing device that, according to the company's claims, detects weak, ultralow-frequency electromagnetic signals associated with a beating heart. These signals, which pass through almost any physical obstruction, are purportedly detected by the device even at significant distances. Statement2: Therefore, if the company 's claims are true, their device will radically improve emergency teams ability to locate quickly people who are trapped within the wreckage of collapsed buildings.\nPremise1: The device gives a distinctive reading when the signals it detects come from human beings rather than from any other living beings.\nPremise2: Ultralow-frequency signals are not the only electromagnetic signals that can pass through almost any physical obstruction.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A company has developed a new sensing device that, according to the company's claims, detects weak, ultralow-frequency electromagnetic signals associated with a beating heart. But signals, which don't pass through all physical obstruction, are purportedly detected by the device only at very close distances. Statement3: Therefore, if the company 's claims are true, their equipment will be updated more comprehensively to improve detection rates in accidents and find people trapped in buildings faster.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_2814",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Ultralow-frequency signals are not the only electromagnetic signals that can pass through almost any physical obstruction.",
            "O": "Premise1: The device gives a distinctive reading when the signals it detects come from human beings rather than from any other living beings.",
            "P": "Statement1: A company has developed a new sensing device that, according to the company's claims, detects weak, ultralow-frequency electromagnetic signals associated with a beating heart. These signals, which pass through almost any physical obstruction, are purportedly detected by the device even at significant distances. Statement2: Therefore, if the company 's claims are true, their device will radically improve emergency teams ability to locate quickly people who are trapped within the wreckage of collapsed buildings."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Virginia and her brother william disagree over when their father was born : virginia claims it was in 1935 and william claims it was in 1933. sent2: the hospital where their father was born has no records for 1933 but has complete records for 1935 -- records that do not include a birth record for their father. Statement2: Therefore, he must have been born in 1933.\nPremise1: Either virginia's claim or william's claim is correct.\nPremise2: Virginia and william know the day and the month of their father's birth.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Virginia and her brother william disagree over the year their father was born : virginia claims it was in 1935 and william claims it was in 1933. Statement2: The hospital where their father was born has no records for 1933 but has complete records for 1935 -- records that do not include a birth record for their father. Statement3: Therefore, he might have been born in 1933.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2710",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument depends on which of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Virginia and william know the day and the month of their father's birth.",
            "O": "Premise1: Either virginia's claim or william's claim is correct.",
            "P": "Statement1: Virginia and her brother william disagree over when their father was born : virginia claims it was in 1935 and william claims it was in 1933. sent2: the hospital where their father was born has no records for 1933 but has complete records for 1935 -- records that do not include a birth record for their father. Statement2: Therefore, he must have been born in 1933."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Human skin gives off an array of gaseous substances, including carbon dioxide and lactic acid, both of which attract mosquitoes. However, neither of these two substances, whether alone or combined with one another, will attract mosquitoes as much as a bare human arm will, even in complete darkness, where a mosquito has no visual cues. Statement2: Therefore, some other gaseous substance given off by human skin also attracts mosquitoes.\nPremise1: Mosquitoes are not attracted to humans by body heat.\nPremise2: Human skin gives off gaseous substances in greater amounts during the day than during the night.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Human skin gives off an array of gaseous substances, including carbon dioxide and lactic acid, both of which attract mosquitoes. However, neither of these two substances, whether alone or combined with one another, will attract mosquitoes as much as a bare human arm will, . Statement3: Meanwhile, some other gaseous substance given off by human skin also attracts mosquitoes mosquitoes have visual cues even in complete darkness, and are more likely to target human skin during the day.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3939",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The reasoning in the argument requires which one of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Human skin gives off gaseous substances in greater amounts during the day than during the night.",
            "O": "Premise1: Mosquitoes are not attracted to humans by body heat.",
            "P": "Statement1: Human skin gives off an array of gaseous substances, including carbon dioxide and lactic acid, both of which attract mosquitoes. However, neither of these two substances, whether alone or combined with one another, will attract mosquitoes as much as a bare human arm will, even in complete darkness, where a mosquito has no visual cues. Statement2: Therefore, some other gaseous substance given off by human skin also attracts mosquitoes."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Downtown petropolis boasted over 100 large buildings 5 years ago. Statement2: Since then, 60 of those buildings have been demolished. Statement3: Since the number of large buildings in a downtown is an indicator of the economic health of that downtown, it is clear that downtown petropolis is in a serious state of economic decline.\nPremise1: Significantly fewer than 60 new large buildings have been built in downtown petropolis during the past 5 years.\nPremise2: Most of the buildings demolished during the past 5 years were torn down because they were structurally unsound.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Downtown petropolis boasted over 100 large buildings 5 years ago. Statement2: Since then, 60 of those buildings have been demolished. Statement3: Since whether the structure of large buildings is sound or not in a downtown is an indicator of the economic health of that downtown, it is clear that downtown petropolis is in a serious state of economic decline.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2662",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Most of the buildings demolished during the past 5 years were torn down because they were structurally unsound.",
            "O": "Premise1: Significantly fewer than 60 new large buildings have been built in downtown petropolis during the past 5 years.",
            "P": "Statement1: Downtown petropolis boasted over 100 large buildings 5 years ago. Statement2: Since then, 60 of those buildings have been demolished. Statement3: Since the number of large buildings in a downtown is an indicator of the economic health of that downtown, it is clear that downtown petropolis is in a serious state of economic decline."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Acme's bank loan must be immediately repaid in full if acme's earnings fall below $ 1 million per year. If acme has to repay the entire loan immediately, it will have to declare bankruptcy. Statement2: Acme had seemed safe from bankruptcy, having reported annual earnings of well over $ 1 million in each year it has had the bank loan. Statement3: However, acme has now admitted overstating its earnings for last year, so it will have to declare bankruptcy.\nPremise1: Acme's earnings for last year, when accurately stated, are below $1 million\nPremise2: Acme has other debts besides the bank loan\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Acme's bank loan must be immediately repaid in full if acme's debts more than $ 1 million per year. If acme has to repay the entire loan immediately, it will have to declare bankruptcy. Statement3: Acme had seemed safe from bankruptcy, having reported annual debts is not over $ 1 million in each year it has had the bank loan. Statement4: However, acme has now admitted not stating its total debts for last year, so it will have to declare bankruptcy.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_548",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument requires the assumption that",
            "Om": "Premise2: Acme has other debts besides the bank loan",
            "O": "Premise1: Acme's earnings for last year, when accurately stated, are below $1 million",
            "P": "Statement1: Acme's bank loan must be immediately repaid in full if acme's earnings fall below $ 1 million per year. If acme has to repay the entire loan immediately, it will have to declare bankruptcy. Statement2: Acme had seemed safe from bankruptcy, having reported annual earnings of well over $ 1 million in each year it has had the bank loan. Statement3: However, acme has now admitted overstating its earnings for last year, so it will have to declare bankruptcy."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Economist : in today's post-industrial economy, higher education is essential for achieving prosperity. Statement2: Without a college degree or higher, citizens do not have access to the highest quartile of salaries, and only individuals earning salaries in this highest quartile have enough disposable income to buy real estate and invest in long term assets.\nPremise1: Prosperity has to include ownership of real estate or long term assets.\nPremise2: All the jobs in the highest quartile of salaries require skills that are always covered as part of a college education\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Economist : in today's post-industrial economy, higher education is essential for achieving prosperity. Statement2: Without a college degree or higher, citizens do not have access to work skills for the highest quartile of salaries, and only individuals earning salaries in this highest quartile have enough disposable income to achieve prosperity.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_1851",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument assumes that",
            "Om": "Premise2: All the jobs in the highest quartile of salaries require skills that are always covered as part of a college education",
            "O": "Premise1: Prosperity has to include ownership of real estate or long term assets.",
            "P": "Statement1: Economist : in today's post-industrial economy, higher education is essential for achieving prosperity. Statement2: Without a college degree or higher, citizens do not have access to the highest quartile of salaries, and only individuals earning salaries in this highest quartile have enough disposable income to buy real estate and invest in long term assets."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Companies wishing to boost sales of merchandise should use in-store displays to catch customers'attention. Statement2: According to a marketing study, today's busy shoppers have less time for coupon-clipping and pay little attention to direct-mail advertising ; instead, they make two-thirds of their buying decisions on the spot at the store.\nPremise1: In-store displays that catch customers' attention increase the likelihood that customers will decide on the spot to buy the company's merchandise.\nPremise2: Coupons and direct-mail advertising were at one time more effective means of boosting sales of merchandise than they are now.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Companies wishing to boost sales of merchandise should use in-coupon-clipping and mail advertising to catch customers'attention this has been an effective sales tool in the past. Statement2: According to a marketing study, today's busy shoppers have less time for coupon-clipping and pay little attention to direct-mail advertising ; instead, they make two-thirds of their buying decisions on the spot at the store.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1170",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption that the argument requires?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Coupons and direct-mail advertising were at one time more effective means of boosting sales of merchandise than they are now.",
            "O": "Premise1: In-store displays that catch customers' attention increase the likelihood that customers will decide on the spot to buy the company's merchandise.",
            "P": "Statement1: Companies wishing to boost sales of merchandise should use in-store displays to catch customers'attention. Statement2: According to a marketing study, today's busy shoppers have less time for coupon-clipping and pay little attention to direct-mail advertising ; instead, they make two-thirds of their buying decisions on the spot at the store."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Art critic : nowadays, museum visitors seldom pause to look at a work of art for even a full minute. Statement2: They look, perhaps take a snapshot, and move on. Statement3: This tells us something about how our relationship to art has changed over time. People have become less willing to engage with works of art than they once were.\nPremise1: The amount of time spent looking at a work of art is a reliable measure of engagement with that work\nPremise2: Visitors would enjoy their museum experiences more if they took more time with individual works of art\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Art critic : nowadays, museum visitors seldom pause to look at a work of art for even a full minute. Statement2: They look, perhaps take a snapshot, and move on. Statement3: This tells us something about how our relationship to art has changed over time. People have become less willing to enjoy their museum experiences than they once were.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_97",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The art critic's argument depends on the assumption that",
            "Om": "Premise2: Visitors would enjoy their museum experiences more if they took more time with individual works of art",
            "O": "Premise1: The amount of time spent looking at a work of art is a reliable measure of engagement with that work",
            "P": "Statement1: Art critic : nowadays, museum visitors seldom pause to look at a work of art for even a full minute. Statement2: They look, perhaps take a snapshot, and move on. Statement3: This tells us something about how our relationship to art has changed over time. People have become less willing to engage with works of art than they once were."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Critic : people today place an especially high value on respect for others ; yet, in their comedy acts, many of today's most popular comedians display blatant disrespect for others. But when people fail to live up to the very ideals they hold in highest esteem, exaggeration of such failings often forms the basis of successful comedy. Statement2: Thus the current popularity of comedians who display disrespect in their acts is hardly surprising.\nPremise1: People who value an ideal especially highly do not always succeed in living up to this ideal.\nPremise2: People today fail to live up to their own ideals more frequently than was the case in the past.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Critic : people today place an especially high value on respect for others ; yet, in their comedy acts, many of today's most popular comedians display blatant disrespect for others. But when people fail to live up to the very ideals they hold in highest esteem, exaggeration of such failings often forms the basis of successful comedy. Statement3: Thus people today tend to create more successful comedies but fail to live up to their ideals.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2815",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The critic's argument depends on which one of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: People today fail to live up to their own ideals more frequently than was the case in the past.",
            "O": "Premise1: People who value an ideal especially highly do not always succeed in living up to this ideal.",
            "P": "Statement1: Critic : people today place an especially high value on respect for others ; yet, in their comedy acts, many of today's most popular comedians display blatant disrespect for others. But when people fail to live up to the very ideals they hold in highest esteem, exaggeration of such failings often forms the basis of successful comedy. Statement2: Thus the current popularity of comedians who display disrespect in their acts is hardly surprising."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Politician : a major social problem is children hurting other children. The results of a recent experiment by psychologists establish that watching violent films is at least partly responsible for this aggressive behavior. Statement2: The psychologists conducted an experiment in which one group of children watched a film of people punching bobo the clown dolls. A second group of children was not shown the film. Afterward, both groups of children played together in a room containing a bobo doll. Most of the children who had seen the film punched the bobo doll, while most of the other children did not.\nPremise1: The children who had been shown the film were found to be no more likely than the children who had not been shown the film to punch other children.\nPremise2: Some children who had not been shown the film imitated the behavior of those who had been shown the film and who punched the doll.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Politician : a major social problem is children hurting other children. The results of a recent experiment by psychologists establish that watching violent films is the only reason for this aggressive behavior. Statement3: The psychologists conducted an experiment in which one group of children watched a film of people punching bobo the clown dolls. A second group of children was not shown the film. Afterward, both groups of children played together in a room containing a bobo doll. Most of the children who had seen the film punched the bobo doll, while most of the other children did not.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3551",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the politician's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Some children who had not been shown the film imitated the behavior of those who had been shown the film and who punched the doll.",
            "O": "Premise1: The children who had been shown the film were found to be no more likely than the children who had not been shown the film to punch other children.",
            "P": "Statement1: Politician : a major social problem is children hurting other children. The results of a recent experiment by psychologists establish that watching violent films is at least partly responsible for this aggressive behavior. Statement2: The psychologists conducted an experiment in which one group of children watched a film of people punching bobo the clown dolls. A second group of children was not shown the film. Afterward, both groups of children played together in a room containing a bobo doll. Most of the children who had seen the film punched the bobo doll, while most of the other children did not."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Margaret came home after a long day of work to find her front door open and her waste basket knocked over with all of the contents strewn about the kitchen floor. Statement2: She believes that her dog must have knocked it over in search for some food scraps to eat, but this belief can not be correct. Statement3: Her husband took the dog with him to work all day.\nPremise1: Margaret's husband brought the dog home on his lunch break.\nPremise2: Margaret's husband accidently knocked it over on his way out the door this morning.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Margaret came home after a long day of work to find her front door closed but her waste basket knocked over with all of the contents strewn about the kitchen floor. A regular deratization is arranged in her family. Statement2: She believes that her husband must have knocked it over, but this belief can not be correct. Statement3: Her husband took the dog with him to work all day without coming back in the midway.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_838",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The stated argument requires which of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Margaret's husband accidently knocked it over on his way out the door this morning.",
            "O": "Premise1: Margaret's husband brought the dog home on his lunch break.",
            "P": "Statement1: Margaret came home after a long day of work to find her front door open and her waste basket knocked over with all of the contents strewn about the kitchen floor. Statement2: She believes that her dog must have knocked it over in search for some food scraps to eat, but this belief can not be correct. Statement3: Her husband took the dog with him to work all day."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Editorial : despite the fact that recent military success has made the prime minister personally popular, her party will lose the next election unless the economy is no longer in recession ; the electorate will blame the state of the economy on her, even though she is hardly responsible for it and her policies will be beneficial in the long run.\nPremise1: The prime minister's party will not win the next election if the electorate believes the prime minister is responsible for a continuing recession.\nPremise2: The prime minister's party will win the next election if the economy shows some signs of recovery from the recession at the time of the election.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Editorial : despite the fact that recent military success has made the prime minister personally popular, her party will lose the next election unless the economy shows some signs of recovery from the recession at the time of the election. ; the electorate will blame the state of the economy on her, even though she is hardly responsible for it and her policies will be beneficial in the long run.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_385",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the editorial's argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The prime minister's party will win the next election if the economy shows some signs of recovery from the recession at the time of the election.",
            "O": "Premise1: The prime minister's party will not win the next election if the electorate believes the prime minister is responsible for a continuing recession.",
            "P": "Statement1: Editorial : despite the fact that recent military success has made the prime minister personally popular, her party will lose the next election unless the economy is no longer in recession ; the electorate will blame the state of the economy on her, even though she is hardly responsible for it and her policies will be beneficial in the long run."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Advertisement : the new reflex computer represents a conceptual advance. Statement2: Unlike traditional computers, the reflex has a built-in monitoring function that continuously checks all other computer operations and lets you know if they are malfunctioning in any way, thus preventing the loss of data. Statement3: With the reflex, therefore, you'll never lose data again!\nPremise1: The monitoring function of the reflex is not subject to frequent unpredictable malfunctioning.\nPremise2: The reflex computer continues to process data while it is warning of a malfunction.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Advertisement : the new reflex computer represents a conceptual advance. Statement2: Unlike traditional computers, the reflex has a built-in monitoring function that continuously,stably and efficiently checks all other computer operations and processes data and lets you know if they are malfunctioning in any way, thus preventing the loss of data. Statement3: With the reflex, even though the monitoring function of the reflex is subject to frequent unpredictable malfunctioning, you'll never lose data again!",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2379",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the advertisement's argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The reflex computer continues to process data while it is warning of a malfunction.",
            "O": "Premise1: The monitoring function of the reflex is not subject to frequent unpredictable malfunctioning.",
            "P": "Statement1: Advertisement : the new reflex computer represents a conceptual advance. Statement2: Unlike traditional computers, the reflex has a built-in monitoring function that continuously checks all other computer operations and lets you know if they are malfunctioning in any way, thus preventing the loss of data. Statement3: With the reflex, therefore, you'll never lose data again!"
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Therapist : cognitive psychotherapy focuses on changing a patient's conscious beliefs. Statement2: Thus, cognitive psychotherapy is likely to be more effective at helping patients overcome psychological problems than are forms of psychotherapy that focus on changing unconscious beliefs and desires, since only conscious beliefs are under the patient's direct conscious control.\nPremise1: It is difficult for any form of psychotherapy to be effective without focusing on mental states that are under the patient's direct conscious control.\nPremise2: Psychological problems are frequently caused by unconscious beliefs that could be changed with the aid of psychotherapy.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Therapist : cognitive psychotherapy focuses on changing a patient's conscious beliefs. Statement2: But, cognitive psychotherapy is likely to be less effective at helping patients overcome psychological problems than the forms of psychotherapy that focus on changing unconscious beliefs and desires, since only conscious beliefs are under the patient's direct conscious control.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_4071",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the therapist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Psychological problems are frequently caused by unconscious beliefs that could be changed with the aid of psychotherapy.",
            "O": "Premise1: It is difficult for any form of psychotherapy to be effective without focusing on mental states that are under the patient's direct conscious control.",
            "P": "Statement1: Therapist : cognitive psychotherapy focuses on changing a patient's conscious beliefs. Statement2: Thus, cognitive psychotherapy is likely to be more effective at helping patients overcome psychological problems than are forms of psychotherapy that focus on changing unconscious beliefs and desires, since only conscious beliefs are under the patient's direct conscious control."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: A scientific study provides evidence that crows are capable of recognizing threatening people and can even pass their concerns on to other crows. Statement2: Researchers wearing rubber caveman masks trapped wild crows and then released them in the same area. Years later, people wearing the same masks near where the crows had been trapped were shrieked at and dive-bombed by crows.\nPremise1: Some of the crows that shrieked at and dive-bombed people wearing the masks were not among the crows that had been trapped\nPremise2: Even in places where crows have never been captured, most crows will shriek at and dive-bomb people wearing caveman masks\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A scientific study provides evidence that crows are capable of recognizing threatening people but it's hard to say if they can even pass their concerns on to other crows. Statement2: Researchers wearing rubber caveman masks trapped wild crows and then released them in the same area. Years later, people wearing the same masks near where the crows had been trapped were shrieked at and dive-bombed by crows. Crows rarely leave their fixed living area.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3741",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument depends on the assumption that",
            "Om": "Premise2: Even in places where crows have never been captured, most crows will shriek at and dive-bomb people wearing caveman masks",
            "O": "Premise1: Some of the crows that shrieked at and dive-bombed people wearing the masks were not among the crows that had been trapped",
            "P": "Statement1: A scientific study provides evidence that crows are capable of recognizing threatening people and can even pass their concerns on to other crows. Statement2: Researchers wearing rubber caveman masks trapped wild crows and then released them in the same area. Years later, people wearing the same masks near where the crows had been trapped were shrieked at and dive-bombed by crows."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Physiological research has uncovered disturbing evidence linking a number of structural disorders to jogging. Among the ailments seemingly connected with this now-popular sport are spinal disk displacements, stress fractures of the feet and ankles, knee and hip joint deterioration, and tendonitis. Statement2: Furthermore, these injuries do not occur exclusively among beginning runners -- veteran joggers suffer an equal percentage of injuries. Statement3: What the accumulating data suggest is that the human anatomy is not able to withstand the stresses of jogging.\nPremise1: The link between jogging and certain structural disorders appears to be a causal one.\nPremise2: The jogger's level of experience is a factor determining the likelihood of a jogging injury.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Physiological research has uncovered disturbing evidence linking a number of structural disorders to jogging. Among the ailments seemingly connected with this now-popular sport are spinal disk displacements, stress fractures of the feet and ankles, knee and hip joint deterioration, and tendonitis. Statement3: Furthermore, these injuries do not occur exclusively among beginning runners -- but veteran joggers suffer an less percentage of injuries. Statement4: What the accumulating data suggest is that the human anatomy of beginning runners is not able to withstand the stresses of jogging.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3643",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption of the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The jogger's level of experience is a factor determining the likelihood of a jogging injury.",
            "O": "Premise1: The link between jogging and certain structural disorders appears to be a causal one.",
            "P": "Statement1: Physiological research has uncovered disturbing evidence linking a number of structural disorders to jogging. Among the ailments seemingly connected with this now-popular sport are spinal disk displacements, stress fractures of the feet and ankles, knee and hip joint deterioration, and tendonitis. Statement2: Furthermore, these injuries do not occur exclusively among beginning runners -- veteran joggers suffer an equal percentage of injuries. Statement3: What the accumulating data suggest is that the human anatomy is not able to withstand the stresses of jogging."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Sent1:\" life expectancy\" is the average age at death of the entire live-born population. Statement1: In the middle of the nineteenth century, life expectancy in north america was 40 years, whereas now it is nearly 80 years. Statement2: Thus, in those days, people must have been considered old at an age that we now consider the prime of life.\nPremise1: Most of the gains in life expectancy in the last 150 years have come from reductions in the number of infants who die in their first year of life.\nPremise2: Many of the people who live to an advanced age today do so only because of medical technology that was unknown in the nineteenth century.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: \" life expectancy\" is the average age at death of the entire live-born population. Statement2: In the middle of the nineteenth century, life expectancy in north america was 40 years, whereas now it is nearly 80 years .compared to the 19th century, modern medical technology is better. Statement3: Thus, in those days, people may have been considered old at an age that we now consider the prime of life.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_2314",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, undermines the argument above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Many of the people who live to an advanced age today do so only because of medical technology that was unknown in the nineteenth century.",
            "O": "Premise1: Most of the gains in life expectancy in the last 150 years have come from reductions in the number of infants who die in their first year of life.",
            "P": "Sent1:\" life expectancy\" is the average age at death of the entire live-born population. Statement1: In the middle of the nineteenth century, life expectancy in north america was 40 years, whereas now it is nearly 80 years. Statement2: Thus, in those days, people must have been considered old at an age that we now consider the prime of life."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Some political thinkers hope to devise a form of government in which every citizen's rights are respected. But such a form of government is impossible. Statement2: For any government must be defined and controlled by laws that determine its powers and limits ; and it is inevitable that some individuals will learn how to interpret these laws to gain a greater share of political power than others have.\nPremise1: In any form of government, if anybody gains a greater share of political power than others have, then somebody's rights will be violated.\nPremise2: A government can ensure that every citizen's rights are respected by keeping the citizens ignorant of the laws.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Some political thinkers hope to devise a form of government in which every citizen's rights are respected. And such a form of government is not impossible. Statement3: For any government must be defined and controlled by laws that determine its powers and limits ; to keep the citizens ignorant of the laws can avoid that some individuals will learn how to interpret these laws to gain a greater share of political power than others have.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2201",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: A government can ensure that every citizen's rights are respected by keeping the citizens ignorant of the laws.",
            "O": "Premise1: In any form of government, if anybody gains a greater share of political power than others have, then somebody's rights will be violated.",
            "P": "Statement1: Some political thinkers hope to devise a form of government in which every citizen's rights are respected. But such a form of government is impossible. Statement2: For any government must be defined and controlled by laws that determine its powers and limits ; and it is inevitable that some individuals will learn how to interpret these laws to gain a greater share of political power than others have."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Anthropological studies indicate that distinct cultures differ in their moral codes. Statement2: Thus, as long as there are distinct cultures, there are no values shared across cultures.\nPremise1: As a result of advancing technology and global communication, we will someday all share the same culture and the same values.\nPremise2: Although specific moral values differ across cultures, more general moral principles, such as \"friendship is good,\" are common to all cultures.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Anthropological studies indicate that distinct cultures differ in their moral codes. Statement2: Thus, as long as there are distinct cultures there wont' be fully communications between cultrues and, there are only a few values shared across cultures.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3917",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following, if true, would weaken the argument except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: Although specific moral values differ across cultures, more general moral principles, such as \"friendship is good,\" are common to all cultures.",
            "O": "Premise1: As a result of advancing technology and global communication, we will someday all share the same culture and the same values.",
            "P": "Statement1: Anthropological studies indicate that distinct cultures differ in their moral codes. Statement2: Thus, as long as there are distinct cultures, there are no values shared across cultures."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Insurers and doctors are well aware that the incidence of lower-back injuries among office workers who spend long hours sitting is higher than that among people who regularly do physical work of a type known to place heavy stresses on the lower back. Statement2: This shows that office equipment and furniture are not properly designed to promote workers'health.\nPremise1: Consistent physical exercise is one of the most effective ways to prevent or recover from lower-back injuries.\nPremise2: When they are at home, laborers and office workers tend to spend similar amounts of time sitting.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Insurers and doctors are well aware that the incidence of lower-back injuries among office workers who spend long hours sitting is higher than that among people who regularly do physical work of a type known to place heavy stresses on the lower back. Statement2: This shows that long hours of sitting at work is the biggest cause of damage to workers' lower back health.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3097",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the reasoning above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: When they are at home, laborers and office workers tend to spend similar amounts of time sitting.",
            "O": "Premise1: Consistent physical exercise is one of the most effective ways to prevent or recover from lower-back injuries.",
            "P": "Statement1: Insurers and doctors are well aware that the incidence of lower-back injuries among office workers who spend long hours sitting is higher than that among people who regularly do physical work of a type known to place heavy stresses on the lower back. Statement2: This shows that office equipment and furniture are not properly designed to promote workers'health."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Correctly measuring the productivity of service workers is complex. Statement2: Consider, for example, postal workers : they are often said to be more productive if more letters are delivered per postal worker. What if more letters are lost or delayed per worker at the same time that more are delivered? Statement3: But is this really true?\nPremise1: The quality of services rendered can appropriately be ignored in computing productivity.\nPremise2: The delivery of letters is the primary activity of the postal service.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Correctly measuring the productivity of service workers is complex. Statement2: Consider, for example, postal workers : they are often said to be more productive if more letters are delivered per postal worker. But what if people didn't need to deliver more letters? What if people need more delivery of newspapers or other items? Statement3: But is this really true?",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_250",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The objection implied above to the productivity measure described is based on doubts about the truth of which of the following statements?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The delivery of letters is the primary activity of the postal service.",
            "O": "Premise1: The quality of services rendered can appropriately be ignored in computing productivity.",
            "P": "Statement1: Correctly measuring the productivity of service workers is complex. Statement2: Consider, for example, postal workers : they are often said to be more productive if more letters are delivered per postal worker. What if more letters are lost or delayed per worker at the same time that more are delivered? Statement3: But is this really true?"
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Sparva, unlike treland's other provinces, requires automobile insurers to pay for any medical treatment sought by someone who has been involved in an accident ; in the other provinces, insurers pay for nonemergency treatment only if they preapprove the treatment. Statement2: Clearly, sparva's less restrictive policy must be the explanation for the fact that altogether insurers there pay for far more treatments after accidents than insurers in other provinces, even though sparva does not have the largest population.\nPremise1: There are fewer traffic accidents annually in sparva than in any of the provinces of comparable or greater population.\nPremise2: The cost of medical care in sparva is higher than the national average.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Sparva, unlike treland's other provinces, requires automobile insurers to pay for any medical treatment sought by someone who has been involved in an accident ; in the other provinces, insurers pay for nonemergency treatment only if they preapprove the treatment. Statement2: But, sparva's more restrictive policy must be the explanation for the fact that altogether insurers there pay for far less treatments after accidents than insurers in other provinces, and also sparva does have the largest population.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_1471",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The cost of medical care in sparva is higher than the national average.",
            "O": "Premise1: There are fewer traffic accidents annually in sparva than in any of the provinces of comparable or greater population.",
            "P": "Statement1: Sparva, unlike treland's other provinces, requires automobile insurers to pay for any medical treatment sought by someone who has been involved in an accident ; in the other provinces, insurers pay for nonemergency treatment only if they preapprove the treatment. Statement2: Clearly, sparva's less restrictive policy must be the explanation for the fact that altogether insurers there pay for far more treatments after accidents than insurers in other provinces, even though sparva does not have the largest population."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Guidebook writer : i have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Statement2: Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.\nPremise1: The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.\nPremise2: The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Guidebook writer : i have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the hotels is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Statement2: Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically used more durable,stable and solid material than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3200",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.",
            "O": "Premise1: The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.",
            "P": "Statement1: Guidebook writer : i have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Statement2: Clearly carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: The principal of school x has proposed a plan that would add an hour-long study period to the end of the school day. Statement2: She claims that the extension would improve the school 's average score on the math section of the state assessment by allowing students more time to complete math homework that they would n't otherwise have time to complete.\nPremise1: The core components of school x's math curriculum are not aligned with the topics tested on the state math assessment.\nPremise2: Administrators from neighboring school y recently implemented a school day extension and have seen no significant improvement in student test scores on the state assessment.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The principal of school x has proposed a plan that would add an hour-long study period to the end of the school day. Statement2: She claims that the extension would significantly improve the school 's average score of the state assessment by allowing students more time to complete homework that they would n't otherwise have time to complete.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_2556",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the argument presented above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Administrators from neighboring school y recently implemented a school day extension and have seen no significant improvement in student test scores on the state assessment.",
            "O": "Premise1: The core components of school x's math curriculum are not aligned with the topics tested on the state math assessment.",
            "P": "Statement1: The principal of school x has proposed a plan that would add an hour-long study period to the end of the school day. Statement2: She claims that the extension would improve the school 's average score on the math section of the state assessment by allowing students more time to complete math homework that they would n't otherwise have time to complete."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: It has been said that authors who write in order to give pleasure can not impart to their readers the truth of their subject matter. That claim can not be true. Statement2: If it were, one could determine the truthfulness of a book simply by looking at its sales figures. If the book were very popular, one could reasonably conclude that it gave people pleasure and therefore that at least some of what is written in the book is not true.\nPremise1: A book will not give its readers pleasure unless it was intended by its author to have that effect.\nPremise2: In many cases, a book's readers are unconcerned about the truth of the book's contents.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: It has been said that authors who write in order to give pleasure can not impart to their readers the truth of their subject matter. That claim can be true. Statement3: Because, one could determine the truthfulness of a book by looking at its sales figures. If the book were very popular, one could reasonably conclude that it gave people pleasure and therefore that at least some of what is written in the book is not true.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2715",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: In many cases, a book's readers are unconcerned about the truth of the book's contents.",
            "O": "Premise1: A book will not give its readers pleasure unless it was intended by its author to have that effect.",
            "P": "Statement1: It has been said that authors who write in order to give pleasure can not impart to their readers the truth of their subject matter. That claim can not be true. Statement2: If it were, one could determine the truthfulness of a book simply by looking at its sales figures. If the book were very popular, one could reasonably conclude that it gave people pleasure and therefore that at least some of what is written in the book is not true."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Economist : in free market systems, the primary responsibility of corporate executives is to determine a nation's industrial technology, the pattern of work organization, location of industry, and resource allocation. They also are the decision makers, though subject to significant consumer control, on what is to be produced and in what quantities. Statement2: In short, a large category of major decisions is turned over to business executives. Statement3: Thus, business executives have become public officials.\nPremise1: Making decisions about patterns of work organization, resource allocation, and location of industry is not the core of a public official's job.\nPremise2: What a country produces and in what quantities is not always completely controlled by corporate executives.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Economist : in free market systems, the primary responsibility of corporate executives is to determine a nation's industrial technology, the pattern of work organization, location of industry, and resource allocation. They also are the decision makers, though subject to significant consumer control, on what is to be produced and in what quantities. Statement3: In short, a large category of major decisions is turned over to business executives. Statement4: Thus, business executives have become decision-maker for national production.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3866",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the economist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: What a country produces and in what quantities is not always completely controlled by corporate executives.",
            "O": "Premise1: Making decisions about patterns of work organization, resource allocation, and location of industry is not the core of a public official's job.",
            "P": "Statement1: Economist : in free market systems, the primary responsibility of corporate executives is to determine a nation's industrial technology, the pattern of work organization, location of industry, and resource allocation. They also are the decision makers, though subject to significant consumer control, on what is to be produced and in what quantities. Statement2: In short, a large category of major decisions is turned over to business executives. Statement3: Thus, business executives have become public officials."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Statistics from the national booksellers association indicate that during the last five years most bookstores have started to experience declining revenues from the sale of fiction, despite national campaigns to encourage people to read more fiction. Statement2: Therefore, these reading campaigns have been largely unsuccessful.\nPremise1: Mail order book clubs have enjoyed substantial growth in fiction sales throughout the last five years.\nPremise2: During the last five years the most profitable items in bookstores have been newspapers and periodicals rather than novels.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Statistics from the national booksellers association indicate that during the last five years most bookstores have started to experience declining revenues from the sale of fiction, despite national campaigns to encourage people to read more print products. Statement2: Therefore, these reading campaigns have been largely unsuccessful.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1023",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: During the last five years the most profitable items in bookstores have been newspapers and periodicals rather than novels.",
            "O": "Premise1: Mail order book clubs have enjoyed substantial growth in fiction sales throughout the last five years.",
            "P": "Statement1: Statistics from the national booksellers association indicate that during the last five years most bookstores have started to experience declining revenues from the sale of fiction, despite national campaigns to encourage people to read more fiction. Statement2: Therefore, these reading campaigns have been largely unsuccessful."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: J.j. thomson, the discoverer of the electron and a recipient of the nobel prize in physics, trained many physicists, among them seven nobel prize winners, 32 fellows of the royal society of london, and 83 professors of physics. Statement2: This shows that the skills needed for creative research can be taught and learned.\nPremise1: At least one of the eminent scientists trained by j. j. thomson was not a creative researcher before coming to study with him.\nPremise2: Scientists who go on to be the most successful researchers often receive their scientific education in classes taught by renowned research scientists.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: J.j. thomson, the discoverer of the electron and a recipient of the nobel prize in physics, trained many physicists, among them seven nobel prize winners, 32 fellows of the royal society of london, and 83 professors of physics. Statement2: This shows that scientific education is necessary to become a successful researcher.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1407",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Scientists who go on to be the most successful researchers often receive their scientific education in classes taught by renowned research scientists.",
            "O": "Premise1: At least one of the eminent scientists trained by j. j. thomson was not a creative researcher before coming to study with him.",
            "P": "Statement1: J.j. thomson, the discoverer of the electron and a recipient of the nobel prize in physics, trained many physicists, among them seven nobel prize winners, 32 fellows of the royal society of london, and 83 professors of physics. Statement2: This shows that the skills needed for creative research can be taught and learned."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Auditor : xyz, a construction company, purchased 20 new trucks 3 years ago, and there is no record of any of those trucks being sold last year. Statement2: Records indicate, however, that xyz sold off all of its diesel-powered trucks last year. Statement3: We can thus conclude that none of the 20 trucks purchased 3 years ago were diesel powered.\nPremise1: None of the 20 trucks was sold before last year.\nPremise2: All of the trucks that xyz sold last year were diesel powered.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Auditor : xyz, a construction company, had 20 trucks, and there is no record of any of those trucks being sold before last year. Statement2: Records indicate, however, that xyz sold off all of its 20 trucks last year. Statement3: We can thus conclude that the 20 trucks were diesel powered.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3308",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the auditor's reasoning?",
            "Om": "Premise2: All of the trucks that xyz sold last year were diesel powered.",
            "O": "Premise1: None of the 20 trucks was sold before last year.",
            "P": "Statement1: Auditor : xyz, a construction company, purchased 20 new trucks 3 years ago, and there is no record of any of those trucks being sold last year. Statement2: Records indicate, however, that xyz sold off all of its diesel-powered trucks last year. Statement3: We can thus conclude that none of the 20 trucks purchased 3 years ago were diesel powered."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Old rose varieties have less vibrant colors than modern rose varieties, but are superior in fragrance. Statement2: This situation has arisen because the modern rose varieties were developed to meet customer demand and marketed mainly through catalogs : colors, but not fragrances, can be photographed.\nPremise1: Breeding roses to enhance one trait often has unanticipated consequences for other traits.\nPremise2: People in earlier times would have found the vibrant colors of modern roses too harsh.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Old rose varieties have less vibrant colors than modern rose varieties. Statement2: This situation has arisen because the modern rose varieties were developed to meet customer demand and modern customers prefer more vibrant colors than old customers.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_713",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the support for the causal claim made above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: People in earlier times would have found the vibrant colors of modern roses too harsh.",
            "O": "Premise1: Breeding roses to enhance one trait often has unanticipated consequences for other traits.",
            "P": "Statement1: Old rose varieties have less vibrant colors than modern rose varieties, but are superior in fragrance. Statement2: This situation has arisen because the modern rose varieties were developed to meet customer demand and marketed mainly through catalogs : colors, but not fragrances, can be photographed."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Psychologist : it is well known that becoming angry often induces temporary incidents of high blood pressure. Statement2: A recent study further showed, however, that people who are easily angered are significantly more likely to have permanently high blood pressure than are people who have more tranquil personalities. Statement3: Coupled with the long-established fact that those with permanently high blood pressure are especially likely to have heart disease, the recent findings indicate that heart disease can result from psychological factors.\nPremise1: The physiological factors that cause permanently high blood pressure generally make people quick to anger.\nPremise2: Those who are easily angered are less likely to recover fully from episodes of heart disease than are other people.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Psychologist : it is well known that becoming angry often only induces temporary incidents of high blood pressure. Statement2: A recent study further showed, however, that people who are easily angered are significantly less likely to have permanently high blood pressure than are people who have more tranquil personalities. Statement3: Coupled with the long-established fact that those with permanently high blood pressure are especially likely to have heart disease, the recent findings indicate that heart disease can not result from psychological factors.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_2258",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following would, if true, most weaken the psychologist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Those who are easily angered are less likely to recover fully from episodes of heart disease than are other people.",
            "O": "Premise1: The physiological factors that cause permanently high blood pressure generally make people quick to anger.",
            "P": "Statement1: Psychologist : it is well known that becoming angry often induces temporary incidents of high blood pressure. Statement2: A recent study further showed, however, that people who are easily angered are significantly more likely to have permanently high blood pressure than are people who have more tranquil personalities. Statement3: Coupled with the long-established fact that those with permanently high blood pressure are especially likely to have heart disease, the recent findings indicate that heart disease can result from psychological factors."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there is one less vehicle emitting pollution into the air than there would be otherwise. Statement2: Therefore if people would walk whenever it is feasible for them to do so, then pollution will be greatly reduced.\nPremise1: People sometimes drive when it is feasible to walk instead.\nPremise2: Taking public transportation rather than driving is not always feasible.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: If a person chooses to take public transportation rather than drive, there is one less vehicle emitting pollution into the air than there would be otherwise. Statement2: Therefore if people would take public transportation whenever it is feasible for them to do so, then pollution will be greatly reduced.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2607",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Taking public transportation rather than driving is not always feasible.",
            "O": "Premise1: People sometimes drive when it is feasible to walk instead.",
            "P": "Statement1: If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there is one less vehicle emitting pollution into the air than there would be otherwise. Statement2: Therefore if people would walk whenever it is feasible for them to do so, then pollution will be greatly reduced."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Researcher : people are able to tell whether a person is extroverted just by looking at pictures in which the person has a neutral expression. Statement2: Since people are also able to tell whether a chimpanzee behaves dominantly just by looking at a picture of the chimpanzee's expressionless face, and since both humans and chimpanzees are primates, we conclude that this ability is probably not acquired solely through culture but rather as a result of primate biology.\nPremise1: Extroversion in people and dominant behavior in chimpanzees are both indicators of a genetic predisposition to assertiveness.\nPremise2: People are generally unable to judge the dominance of bonobos, which are also primates, by looking at pictures of them.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Researcher : people are able to tell whether a person is extroverted just by looking at pictures in which the person has a neutral expression. Statement2: Since people can not able to tell whether a chimpanzee behaves dominantly just by looking at a picture of the chimpanzee's expressionless face, and since both humans and chimpanzees are primates, we conclude that this ability is probably acquired through culture instead of a result of primate biology.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_4171",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the researcher's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: People are generally unable to judge the dominance of bonobos, which are also primates, by looking at pictures of them.",
            "O": "Premise1: Extroversion in people and dominant behavior in chimpanzees are both indicators of a genetic predisposition to assertiveness.",
            "P": "Statement1: Researcher : people are able to tell whether a person is extroverted just by looking at pictures in which the person has a neutral expression. Statement2: Since people are also able to tell whether a chimpanzee behaves dominantly just by looking at a picture of the chimpanzee's expressionless face, and since both humans and chimpanzees are primates, we conclude that this ability is probably not acquired solely through culture but rather as a result of primate biology."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Businessman : sales are the most important part of any business. Statement2: Marketing and communications are never as effective as a strong sales team. Statement3: Persuasive salesmen can sell as many units of an inferior product as average salesmen with better quality products. Statement4: Our company should eliminate every department except the sales team.\nPremise1: The sales team's effectiveness depends on contributions from the other departments.\nPremise2: The company would be better off with only a sales team.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Businessman : sales are the most important part of any business. Statement2: Marketing and communications are never better than a strong sales team. Statement3: Persuasive salesmen can sell as many units of an inferior product as average salesmen with better quality products. Statement4: Our company should eliminate every department except the sales team.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1366",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the businessman's argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The company would be better off with only a sales team.",
            "O": "Premise1: The sales team's effectiveness depends on contributions from the other departments.",
            "P": "Statement1: Businessman : sales are the most important part of any business. Statement2: Marketing and communications are never as effective as a strong sales team. Statement3: Persuasive salesmen can sell as many units of an inferior product as average salesmen with better quality products. Statement4: Our company should eliminate every department except the sales team."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Although there is no record of poet edmund spenser 's parentage, we do know that as a youth spenser attended the merchant tailors'school in london for a period between 1560 and 1570. records from this time indicate that the merchant tailors'guild then had only three members named spenser : robert spenser, listed as a gentleman ; nicholas spenser, elected the guild 's warden in 1568 ; and john spenser, listed as a\" journeyman cloth-maker. \" Statement2: Of these, the last was likely the least affluent of the three-and most likely edmund 's father, since school accounting records list edmund as a scholar who attended the school at a reduced fee.\nPremise1: The merchant tailors' school did not reduce its fees for the children of the more affluent guild members.\nPremise2: Anybody in sixteenth century london who made clothing professionally would have had to be a member of the merchant tailors' guild.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Although there is no record of poet edmund spenser 's parentage, we do know that as a youth spenser attended the merchant tailors'school in london for a period between 1560 and 1570. records from this time indicate that the merchant tailors'guild then had only three members named spenser : robert spenser, listed as a gentleman ; nicholas spenser, elected the guild 's warden in 1568 ; and john spenser, listed as a\" journeyman cloth-maker. \" Statement3: Of these, the last was most likely edmund 's father, since he made clothing professionally.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2114",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Anybody in sixteenth century london who made clothing professionally would have had to be a member of the merchant tailors' guild.",
            "O": "Premise1: The merchant tailors' school did not reduce its fees for the children of the more affluent guild members.",
            "P": "Statement1: Although there is no record of poet edmund spenser 's parentage, we do know that as a youth spenser attended the merchant tailors'school in london for a period between 1560 and 1570. records from this time indicate that the merchant tailors'guild then had only three members named spenser : robert spenser, listed as a gentleman ; nicholas spenser, elected the guild 's warden in 1568 ; and john spenser, listed as a\" journeyman cloth-maker. \" Statement2: Of these, the last was likely the least affluent of the three-and most likely edmund 's father, since school accounting records list edmund as a scholar who attended the school at a reduced fee."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: The legislature of the philippines voted recently to abolish the death penalty. In contrast, the death penalty remains legal in the united states. Statement2: The difference in the legality of capital punishment demonstrates that the majority of american citizens believe in the death penalty, while the majority of filipino citizens do not.\nPremise1: The legal status of capital punishment in the united states and the philippines aligns with how the majority of citizens in those respective countries view the death penalty.\nPremise2: There are not strong voices opposing the death penalty in the united states.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The legislature of the philippines voted recently to abolish the death penalty. In contrast, the death penalty remains legal in the united states. Statement3: The difference in the legality of capital punishment demonstrates that all american citizens believe in the death penalty, while the majority of filipino citizens do not.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4553",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption upon which the above argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: There are not strong voices opposing the death penalty in the united states.",
            "O": "Premise1: The legal status of capital punishment in the united states and the philippines aligns with how the majority of citizens in those respective countries view the death penalty.",
            "P": "Statement1: The legislature of the philippines voted recently to abolish the death penalty. In contrast, the death penalty remains legal in the united states. Statement2: The difference in the legality of capital punishment demonstrates that the majority of american citizens believe in the death penalty, while the majority of filipino citizens do not."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Robin : when a region's economy is faltering, many people lose their jobs. Statement2: As a result, spending on consumer goods declines, leading in turn to more lost jobs and a worsening of the economy. Statement3: Eventually, the economy becomes so bad that prices collapse ; the lower prices encourage people to increase spending on consumer goods, and this higher spending results in economic improvement. Statement4: Terry : sent5: people can not increase their spending if they have no jobs and no money for anything other than basic necessities, so price collapses can not lead to economic improvement.\nPremise1: Even people who do not lose their jobs spend less in bad economic times and thus have savings available to spend when prices collapse.\nPremise2: People who have lost their jobs must continue to buy some basic goods such as food, even during bad economic times.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Robin : when a region's economy is faltering, many people lose their jobs. Statement2: As a result, spending on consumer goods declines, leading in turn to more lost jobs and a worsening of the economy. Statement3: Eventually, the economy becomes so bad that prices collapse ; the lower prices encourage people to increase spending on consumer goods, and this higher spending results in economic improvement. Statement4: Terry : Statement5: People can not increase their spending if they have no jobs and no money for consumer goods, so price collapses can not lead to economic improvement.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1788",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most undermines terry's objection to robin's analysis?",
            "Om": "Premise2: People who have lost their jobs must continue to buy some basic goods such as food, even during bad economic times.",
            "O": "Premise1: Even people who do not lose their jobs spend less in bad economic times and thus have savings available to spend when prices collapse.",
            "P": "Statement1: Robin : when a region's economy is faltering, many people lose their jobs. Statement2: As a result, spending on consumer goods declines, leading in turn to more lost jobs and a worsening of the economy. Statement3: Eventually, the economy becomes so bad that prices collapse ; the lower prices encourage people to increase spending on consumer goods, and this higher spending results in economic improvement. Statement4: Terry : sent5: people can not increase their spending if they have no jobs and no money for anything other than basic necessities, so price collapses can not lead to economic improvement."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Opponents of peat harvesting in this country argue that it would alter the ecological balance of our peatrich wetlands and that, as a direct consequence of this, much of the country's water supply would be threatened with contamination. But this can not be true, for in ireland, where peat has been harvested for centuries, the water supply is not contaminated. Statement2: We can safely proceed with the harvesting of peat.\nPremise1: The original ecology of the peat-harvesting areas of ireland was virtually identical to that of the undisturbed wetlands of this country.\nPremise2: The activities of other industries in coming years are likely to have adverse effects on the water supply of this country.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Opponents of peat harvesting in this country argue that it would alter the ecological balance of our peatrich wetlands and that, as a direct consequence of this, much of the country's water supply would be threatened with contamination. This can be true, for in ireland, where peat has been harvested for centuries, the water supply is t contaminated. Statement3: We can not safely proceed with the harvesting of peat.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_7",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The activities of other industries in coming years are likely to have adverse effects on the water supply of this country.",
            "O": "Premise1: The original ecology of the peat-harvesting areas of ireland was virtually identical to that of the undisturbed wetlands of this country.",
            "P": "Statement1: Opponents of peat harvesting in this country argue that it would alter the ecological balance of our peatrich wetlands and that, as a direct consequence of this, much of the country's water supply would be threatened with contamination. But this can not be true, for in ireland, where peat has been harvested for centuries, the water supply is not contaminated. Statement2: We can safely proceed with the harvesting of peat."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Older united states automobiles have been identified as contributing disproportionately to global air pollution. The requirement in many jurisdictions that automobiles pass emission-control inspections has had the effect of taking many such automobiles out of service in the united states, as they fail inspection and their owners opt to buy newer automobiles. Statement2: Thus the burden of pollution such older united states automobiles contribute to the global atmosphere will be gradually reduced over the next decade.\nPremise1: There is a thriving market for used older united states automobiles that are exported to regions that have no emission-control regulations.\nPremise2: Even if all the older automobiles in the united states were retired from service, air pollution from united states automobiles could still increase if the total number of automobiles in use should increase significantly.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Older united states automobiles have been identified as contributing disproportionately to global air pollution. The requirement in many jurisdictions that automobiles pass emission-control inspections has had the effect of taking many such automobiles out of service in the united states, as they fail inspection and their owners opt to buy newer automobiles. Statement3: Thus the burden of pollution such united states automobiles contribute to the global atmosphere will be gradually reduced over the next decade.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_4112",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Even if all the older automobiles in the united states were retired from service, air pollution from united states automobiles could still increase if the total number of automobiles in use should increase significantly.",
            "O": "Premise1: There is a thriving market for used older united states automobiles that are exported to regions that have no emission-control regulations.",
            "P": "Statement1: Older united states automobiles have been identified as contributing disproportionately to global air pollution. The requirement in many jurisdictions that automobiles pass emission-control inspections has had the effect of taking many such automobiles out of service in the united states, as they fail inspection and their owners opt to buy newer automobiles. Statement2: Thus the burden of pollution such older united states automobiles contribute to the global atmosphere will be gradually reduced over the next decade."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Builder : within ten years, most of the new homes constructed in north america will have steel frameworks rather than wood ones. Statement2: After all, two-by-fours and two-by-sixes -- the sizes of lumber most commonly used in home construction -- are deteriorating in quality and increasing in cost, while environment-friendly steel is decreasing in cost. In addition, unlike wood, steel will not warp, rot, or split.\nPremise1: Training home construction workers to work with steel is very costly.\nPremise2: Steel-framed homes do not have to be treated with pesticides or other chemicals that can contribute to indoor air pollution.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Builder : within ten years, most of the new homes constructed in north america will still have wood frameworks rather than steel ones. Statement2: Because two-by-fours and two-by-sixes -- the sizes of lumber most commonly used in home construction -- are improving in quality so that it decreases in long-term cost, while environment-friendly steel is only decreasing in short-term cost. In addition, like steel, good wood will not warp, rot, or split.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_773",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the builder's reasoning?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Steel-framed homes do not have to be treated with pesticides or other chemicals that can contribute to indoor air pollution.",
            "O": "Premise1: Training home construction workers to work with steel is very costly.",
            "P": "Statement1: Builder : within ten years, most of the new homes constructed in north america will have steel frameworks rather than wood ones. Statement2: After all, two-by-fours and two-by-sixes -- the sizes of lumber most commonly used in home construction -- are deteriorating in quality and increasing in cost, while environment-friendly steel is decreasing in cost. In addition, unlike wood, steel will not warp, rot, or split."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: People who have political power tend to see new technologies as a means of extending or protecting their power, whereas they generally see new ethical arguments and ideas as a threat to it. Statement2: Therefore, technical ingenuity usually brings benefits to those who have this ingenuity, whereas ethical inventiveness brings only pain to those who have this inventiveness.\nPremise1: Politically powerful people tend to reward those who they believe are useful to them and to punish those who they believe are a threat.\nPremise2: New technologies are often used by people who strive to defeat those who currently have political power.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: People who have political power tend to see new ethical arguments and ideas as a means of extending or protecting their power, whereas they generally see new technologies as a threat to it. Statement2: Therefore, technical ingenuity usually brings pain to those who have this ingenuity, whereas ethical inventiveness brings benefits to those who have this inventiveness.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_3331",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following statements, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: New technologies are often used by people who strive to defeat those who currently have political power.",
            "O": "Premise1: Politically powerful people tend to reward those who they believe are useful to them and to punish those who they believe are a threat.",
            "P": "Statement1: People who have political power tend to see new technologies as a means of extending or protecting their power, whereas they generally see new ethical arguments and ideas as a threat to it. Statement2: Therefore, technical ingenuity usually brings benefits to those who have this ingenuity, whereas ethical inventiveness brings only pain to those who have this inventiveness."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: When amphibians first appeared on earth millions of years ago, the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating earth's atmosphere was much greater than it is today. Statement2: Therefore, current dramatic decreases in amphibian populations can not be the result of recent increases in ultraviolet radiation penetrating earth's atmosphere.\nPremise1: The eggs of modern amphibians are not significantly more vulnerable to ultraviolet radiation than the eggs of the first amphibians were.\nPremise2: Modern amphibians are not as likely as the first amphibians were to live in habitats that shield them from ultraviolet radiation.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: When amphibians first appeared on earth millions of years ago, the amount of ultraviolet radiation in their habitats was much fewer than it is today. Statement2: Therefore, current dramatic decreases in amphibian populations can be the result of recent increases in ultraviolet radiation penetrating earth's atmosphere, which leads to increases in ultraviolet radiation in habitats.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4020",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Modern amphibians are not as likely as the first amphibians were to live in habitats that shield them from ultraviolet radiation.",
            "O": "Premise1: The eggs of modern amphibians are not significantly more vulnerable to ultraviolet radiation than the eggs of the first amphibians were.",
            "P": "Statement1: When amphibians first appeared on earth millions of years ago, the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating earth's atmosphere was much greater than it is today. Statement2: Therefore, current dramatic decreases in amphibian populations can not be the result of recent increases in ultraviolet radiation penetrating earth's atmosphere."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Psychiatrist : in treating first-year students at this university, i have noticed that those reporting the highest levels of spending on recreation score at about the same level on standard screening instruments for anxiety and depression as those reporting the lowest levels of spending on recreation. Statement2: This suggests that the first-year students with high levels of spending on recreation could reduce that spending without increasing their anxiety or depression.\nPremise1: Among adults between the ages of 40 and 60, increased levels of spending on recreation are strongly correlated with decreased levels of anxiety and depression.\nPremise2: Several of the psychiatrist's patients who are first-year students at the university have reduced their spending on recreation from very high levels to very low levels without increasing their anxiety or depression.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Psychiatrist : in treating first-year students at this university, i have noticed that those reporting the highest levels of spending on recreation score at about the lower level on standard screening instruments for anxiety and depression as those reporting the lowest levels of spending on recreation. Statement2: This suggests that the first-year students with high levels of spending on recreation could reduce that spending but with increasing their anxiety or depression.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_999",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following, if true, strengthens the psychiatrist's argument except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: Several of the psychiatrist's patients who are first-year students at the university have reduced their spending on recreation from very high levels to very low levels without increasing their anxiety or depression.",
            "O": "Premise1: Among adults between the ages of 40 and 60, increased levels of spending on recreation are strongly correlated with decreased levels of anxiety and depression.",
            "P": "Statement1: Psychiatrist : in treating first-year students at this university, i have noticed that those reporting the highest levels of spending on recreation score at about the same level on standard screening instruments for anxiety and depression as those reporting the lowest levels of spending on recreation. Statement2: This suggests that the first-year students with high levels of spending on recreation could reduce that spending without increasing their anxiety or depression."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Scientist : there is a lot of concern that human behavior may be responsible for large-scale climate change. Statement2: But this should be seen as more of an opportunity than a problem. Statement3: If human behavior is responsible for climate change, then we can control future climate change to make it less extreme than previous climate shifts.\nPremise1: Human beings can control the aspects of their behavior that have an impact on climate change.\nPremise2: At least some previous large-scale climate changes have been caused by human behavior.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Scientist : there is a lot of concern that human behavior may be responsible for large-scale climate change. Statement2: But this should be seen as more of an opportunity than a problem. Statement3: If human behavior is responsible for climate change, then we can control future climate change to make it less extreme than previous climate shifts due to human behaviour",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_2224",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The scientist's argument requires assuming which one of the following?",
            "Om": "Premise2: At least some previous large-scale climate changes have been caused by human behavior.",
            "O": "Premise1: Human beings can control the aspects of their behavior that have an impact on climate change.",
            "P": "Statement1: Scientist : there is a lot of concern that human behavior may be responsible for large-scale climate change. Statement2: But this should be seen as more of an opportunity than a problem. Statement3: If human behavior is responsible for climate change, then we can control future climate change to make it less extreme than previous climate shifts."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: More and more computer programs that provide solutions to mathematical problems in engineering are being produced, and it is thus increasingly unnecessary for practicing engineers to have a thorough understanding of fundamental mathematical principles. Statement2: Consequently, in training engineers who will work in industry, less emphasis should be placed on mathematical principles, so that space in the engineering curriculum will be available for other important subjects.\nPremise1: The effective use of computer programs that provide solutions to mathematical problems in engineering requires an understanding of mathematical principles.\nPremise2: Development of composites and other such new materials has meant that the curriculum for engineers who will work in industry must allow time for teaching the properties of these materials.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: More and more computer programs that provide solutions to mathematical problems in engineering are being produced, however, it is thus increasingly necessary for practicing engineers to have a thorough understanding of fundamental mathematical principles in order to solve practical problems in engineering. Statement2: Consequently, in training engineers who will work in industry, more emphasis should be placed on mathematical principles, so there's no need to set aside time for other important subjects.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3300",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument given for the recommendation above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Development of composites and other such new materials has meant that the curriculum for engineers who will work in industry must allow time for teaching the properties of these materials.",
            "O": "Premise1: The effective use of computer programs that provide solutions to mathematical problems in engineering requires an understanding of mathematical principles.",
            "P": "Statement1: More and more computer programs that provide solutions to mathematical problems in engineering are being produced, and it is thus increasingly unnecessary for practicing engineers to have a thorough understanding of fundamental mathematical principles. Statement2: Consequently, in training engineers who will work in industry, less emphasis should be placed on mathematical principles, so that space in the engineering curriculum will be available for other important subjects."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Chef : this mussel recipe's first step is to sprinkle the live mussels with cornmeal. Statement2: The cornmeal is used to clean them out : they take the cornmeal in and eject the sand that they contain. Statement3: But i can skip this step, because the mussels available at seafood markets are farm raised and therefore do not contain sand.\nPremise1: The mussels the chef is using for the mussel recipe came from a seafood market.\nPremise2: The chef's mussel recipe was written before farm-raised mussels became available.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Chef : this mussel recipe's first step is to sprinkle the live mussels with cornmeal. Statement2: The cornmeal is used to clean them out : they take the cornmeal in and eject the sand that they contain. Statement3: But i can skip this step today, because the mussels available at seafood markets are farm raised and therefore do not contain sand.but in the past mussel recipes, live mussels were required to spit sand.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3481",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the chef's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The chef's mussel recipe was written before farm-raised mussels became available.",
            "O": "Premise1: The mussels the chef is using for the mussel recipe came from a seafood market.",
            "P": "Statement1: Chef : this mussel recipe's first step is to sprinkle the live mussels with cornmeal. Statement2: The cornmeal is used to clean them out : they take the cornmeal in and eject the sand that they contain. Statement3: But i can skip this step, because the mussels available at seafood markets are farm raised and therefore do not contain sand."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Drama critic : audiences will enjoy warner's latest play, about the disintegration of a family, because of the superb acting. Statement2: The chemistry between the actors could not be more intense, and ziegler, who plays the child, captures convincingly the guilt and despair experienced as the family members grow more estranged from each other.\nPremise1: The plot of the play is similar in some respects to plots of warner's other works.\nPremise2: Generally, audiences enjoy romantic comedies but find tragedies upsetting.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Drama critic : audiences will not enjoy warner's latest play, because of the disintegration of a family, even with the superb acting. Statement2: The chemistry between the actors could not be more intense, and ziegler, who plays the child, captures convincingly the guilt and despair experienced as the family members grow more estranged from each other.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_780",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: Generally, audiences enjoy romantic comedies but find tragedies upsetting.",
            "O": "Premise1: The plot of the play is similar in some respects to plots of warner's other works.",
            "P": "Statement1: Drama critic : audiences will enjoy warner's latest play, about the disintegration of a family, because of the superb acting. Statement2: The chemistry between the actors could not be more intense, and ziegler, who plays the child, captures convincingly the guilt and despair experienced as the family members grow more estranged from each other."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: In a study of the effect of radiation from nuclear weapons plants on people living in areas near them, researchers compared death rates in the areas near the plants with death rates in areas that had no such plants. Statement2: Finding no difference in these rates, the researchers concluded that radiation from the nuclear weapons plants poses no health hazards to people living near them.\nPremise1: Exposure to nuclear radiation can cause many serious diseases that do not necessarily result in death.\nPremise2: Nuclear power plants were not included in the study.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In a study of the effect of radiation from nuclear weapons plants on people living in areas near them, researchers compared death rates in the areas near the plants with death rates in areas that had no such plants. Statement2: Finding no difference in these rates, the researchers concluded that nuclear radiation poses no health hazards to people living near them.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1174",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the researchers' argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Nuclear power plants were not included in the study.",
            "O": "Premise1: Exposure to nuclear radiation can cause many serious diseases that do not necessarily result in death.",
            "P": "Statement1: In a study of the effect of radiation from nuclear weapons plants on people living in areas near them, researchers compared death rates in the areas near the plants with death rates in areas that had no such plants. Statement2: Finding no difference in these rates, the researchers concluded that radiation from the nuclear weapons plants poses no health hazards to people living near them."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: When a certain gland becomes cancerous in humans, it produces high levels of a particular protein. Statement2: A blood test can determine the level of this protein well before a cancer of the gland could be detected by other means. Statement3: Some doctors recommend that aggressive anticancer treatment should be begun as early as possible for anyone who is tested and is found to have high levels of the protein.\nPremise1: Enlargement of the gland, a common condition infrequently associated with cancer, results in high levels of the protein.\nPremise2: The blood test for the protein has been in use for some time to monitor the condition of patients who have been diagnosed as having cancer of the gland.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: When a certain gland becomes cancerous in humans, it produces high levels of a particular protein. Statement2: A blood test can determine the level of this protein well before a cancer of the gland could be detected by other means. Statement3: Some doctors recommend that since such blood tests are new to the markett other protein tests are available .",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_4529",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the doctors' recommendation?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The blood test for the protein has been in use for some time to monitor the condition of patients who have been diagnosed as having cancer of the gland.",
            "O": "Premise1: Enlargement of the gland, a common condition infrequently associated with cancer, results in high levels of the protein.",
            "P": "Statement1: When a certain gland becomes cancerous in humans, it produces high levels of a particular protein. Statement2: A blood test can determine the level of this protein well before a cancer of the gland could be detected by other means. Statement3: Some doctors recommend that aggressive anticancer treatment should be begun as early as possible for anyone who is tested and is found to have high levels of the protein."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: In north america there has been an explosion of public interest in, and enjoyment of, opera over the last three decades. Statement2: The evidence of this explosion is that of the 70 or so professional opera companies currently active in north america, 45 were founded over the course of the last 30 years.\nPremise1: There were fewer than 45 professional opera companies that had been active 30 years ago and that ceased operations during the last 30 years.\nPremise2: All of the 70 professional opera companies are commercially viable operations.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In north america there has been an explosion of public interest in, and enjoyment of, opera over the last three decades. Statement2: The evidence of this explosion is that of the 70 or so professional opera companies currently profit in north america, 45 were founded over the course of the last 30 years.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_2549",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The reasoning above assumes which one of the following?",
            "Om": "Premise2: All of the 70 professional opera companies are commercially viable operations.",
            "O": "Premise1: There were fewer than 45 professional opera companies that had been active 30 years ago and that ceased operations during the last 30 years.",
            "P": "Statement1: In north america there has been an explosion of public interest in, and enjoyment of, opera over the last three decades. Statement2: The evidence of this explosion is that of the 70 or so professional opera companies currently active in north america, 45 were founded over the course of the last 30 years."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: When a society undergoes slow change, its younger members find great value in the advice of its older members. But when a society undergoes rapid change, young people think that little in the experience of their elders is relevant to them, and so do not value their advice. Statement2: Thus, we may measure the rate at which a society is changing by measuring the amount of deference its younger members show to their elders.\nPremise1: The deference young people show to their elders varies according to how much the young value their elders' advice.\nPremise2: How much deference young people show to their elders depends on how much of the elders' experience is practically useful to them.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: When a society undergoes slow change, its younger members find great value in the advice of its older members. But when a society undergoes rapid change, young people think that little in the experience of their elders is relevant to them, and so do not value their advice. Statement3: Thus, we may measure how much of the elders' experience is practically useful by measuring the amount of deference its younger members show to their elders.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3081",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: How much deference young people show to their elders depends on how much of the elders' experience is practically useful to them.",
            "O": "Premise1: The deference young people show to their elders varies according to how much the young value their elders' advice.",
            "P": "Statement1: When a society undergoes slow change, its younger members find great value in the advice of its older members. But when a society undergoes rapid change, young people think that little in the experience of their elders is relevant to them, and so do not value their advice. Statement2: Thus, we may measure the rate at which a society is changing by measuring the amount of deference its younger members show to their elders."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: In 1955, legislation in a certain country gave the government increased control over industrial workplace safety conditions. Among the high-risk industries in that country, the likelihood that a worker will suffer a serious injury has decreased since 1955. sent3: the legislation, therefore, has increased overall worker safety within high-risk industries.\nPremise1: Because of technological innovation, most workplaces in the high-risk industries do not require as much unprotected interaction between workers and heavy machinery as they did in 1955.\nPremise2: The number of work-related injuries occurring within industries not considered high-risk has increased annually since 1955.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In 1955, legislation in a certain country gave the government increased control over industrial workplace safety conditions. Among all industries in that country, the likelihood that a worker will suffer a serious injury has decreased since 1955. Statement3: The legislation, therefore, has increased overall worker safety within all industries.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_224",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The number of work-related injuries occurring within industries not considered high-risk has increased annually since 1955.",
            "O": "Premise1: Because of technological innovation, most workplaces in the high-risk industries do not require as much unprotected interaction between workers and heavy machinery as they did in 1955.",
            "P": "Statement1: In 1955, legislation in a certain country gave the government increased control over industrial workplace safety conditions. Among the high-risk industries in that country, the likelihood that a worker will suffer a serious injury has decreased since 1955. sent3: the legislation, therefore, has increased overall worker safety within high-risk industries."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: The indonesian mimic octopus is able to camouflage itself from predators by blending into the background. Sometimes, though, even when a predator is nearby, the mimic octopus takes on a color pattern that is not present in the immediate environment. Statement2: A marine biologist of cephalopods claims that this behavior is a sign of an octopus engaging in play, meaning that the behavior does not confer any specific advantage.\nPremise1: The color pattern an indonesian mimic octopus assumes when a predator is nearby, but that does not match its immediate environment, has been found to parallel that of various jellyfish venomous to the octopus's predators.\nPremise2: The indonesian mimic octopus engages in other forms of behavior that seem to serve no purpose, yet several marine biologists are reluctant to describe such behavior as play.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The indonesian mimic octopus is able to camouflage itself from predators by blending into the background. Sometimes, though, even when a predator is nearby, the mimic octopus takes on a color pattern that is not present in the immediate environment. Statement3: A marine biologist of cephalopods claims that this behavior is not a sign of an octopus engaging in play, meaning that the behavior confers some specific advantages.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_4554",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, would most call in to doubt the marine biologist's claim?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The indonesian mimic octopus engages in other forms of behavior that seem to serve no purpose, yet several marine biologists are reluctant to describe such behavior as play.",
            "O": "Premise1: The color pattern an indonesian mimic octopus assumes when a predator is nearby, but that does not match its immediate environment, has been found to parallel that of various jellyfish venomous to the octopus's predators.",
            "P": "Statement1: The indonesian mimic octopus is able to camouflage itself from predators by blending into the background. Sometimes, though, even when a predator is nearby, the mimic octopus takes on a color pattern that is not present in the immediate environment. Statement2: A marine biologist of cephalopods claims that this behavior is a sign of an octopus engaging in play, meaning that the behavior does not confer any specific advantage."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Journalist : the advice of social scientists is frequently overlooked by politicians making social policy. Statement2: Because it is not unreasonable to discount scientific assertions backed by weak evidence, politicians should not generally be criticized for ignoring social science, for social scientists, unlike physical scientists, seldom agree on the claims made even within their own specialty.\nPremise1: The failure of scientists to agree that a claim within their specialty is true can indicate that the evidence for the claim is not strong.\nPremise2: Politicians should follow the advice of experts on issues about which those experts agree among themselves.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Journalist : the advice of social scientists is frequently overlooked by politicians making social policy. Statement2: Because it is not unreasonable to discount scientific assertions, politicians should not generally be criticized for ignoring social science, unless social scientists agree on the same claim, for social scientists, unlike physical scientists, seldom agree on the claims made even within their own specialty.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2593",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the journalist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Politicians should follow the advice of experts on issues about which those experts agree among themselves.",
            "O": "Premise1: The failure of scientists to agree that a claim within their specialty is true can indicate that the evidence for the claim is not strong.",
            "P": "Statement1: Journalist : the advice of social scientists is frequently overlooked by politicians making social policy. Statement2: Because it is not unreasonable to discount scientific assertions backed by weak evidence, politicians should not generally be criticized for ignoring social science, for social scientists, unlike physical scientists, seldom agree on the claims made even within their own specialty."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: After the first bite, the mystery recipe contest judge has detected cumin, red pepper flakes, and lemon grass in the winning dish. These seasonings have a tendency to be potent, producing distinct flavors. Statement2: Since the quantity of any seasoning in a recipe depends directly on how potent that seasoning tastes in the dish, the judge has determined that the dish contains cumin, lemon grass, and red pepper flakes, in order of decreasing relative quantity.\nPremise1: The bite that the judge took was representative of the whole dish.\nPremise2: The winning dish contains at least one other seasoning ingredient besides cumin, lemon grass, and red pepper flakes.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: After the first bite, the mystery recipe contest judge has detected cumin, red pepper flakes, and lemon grass in the winning dish. These seasonings have a tendency to be potent, producing distinct flavors but they wonder where the sweet comes from.. Statement3: Since the quantity of any seasoning in a recipe depends directly on how potent that seasoning tastes in the dish, the judge has determined that the dish contains cumin, lemon grass, and red pepper flakes, in order of decreasing relative quantity.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2072",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The judge's argument relies on which of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The winning dish contains at least one other seasoning ingredient besides cumin, lemon grass, and red pepper flakes.",
            "O": "Premise1: The bite that the judge took was representative of the whole dish.",
            "P": "Statement1: After the first bite, the mystery recipe contest judge has detected cumin, red pepper flakes, and lemon grass in the winning dish. These seasonings have a tendency to be potent, producing distinct flavors. Statement2: Since the quantity of any seasoning in a recipe depends directly on how potent that seasoning tastes in the dish, the judge has determined that the dish contains cumin, lemon grass, and red pepper flakes, in order of decreasing relative quantity."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to ensure that the nuts are sold to domestic processing plants. If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews. Statement2: However, since all the processing plants are in urban areas, removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government's effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.\nPremise1: A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in kernland off their land and into the cities.\nPremise2: Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to ensure that the nuts are sold to domestic processing plants. If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices, cashew processors in kernland would be less profitable. Statement3: However, since all the processing plants are in urban areas, removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government's effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_344",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Buying unprocessed cashews at lower than world market prices enables cashew processors in kernland to sell processed nuts at competitive prices.",
            "O": "Premise1: A lack of profitable crops is driving an increasing number of small farmers in kernland off their land and into the cities.",
            "P": "Statement1: Kernland imposes a high tariff on the export of unprocessed cashew nuts in order to ensure that the nuts are sold to domestic processing plants. If the tariff were lifted and unprocessed cashews were sold at world market prices, more farmers could profit by growing cashews. Statement2: However, since all the processing plants are in urban areas, removing the tariff would seriously hamper the government's effort to reduce urban unemployment over the next five years."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Thirty years ago, the percentage of the british people who vacationed in foreign countries was very small compared with the large percentage of the british population who travel abroad for vacations now. Foreign travel is, and always has been, expensive from britain. Statement2: Therefore, british people must have, on average, more money to spend on vacations now than they did 30 years ago.\nPremise1: If more of the british people of 30 years ago had had enough money to vacation abroad, more would have done so.\nPremise2: If the percentage of british people vacationing abroad was lower 30 years ago, then the british people of 30 years ago must have spent more money on domestic vacations.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Thirty years ago, the percentage of the british people who vacationed in foreign countries was very small compared with the large percentage of the british population who travel abroad for vacations now and the british never stop taking holidays.. foreign travel is, in recent years, expensive from britain. Statement3: Therefore, british people must have, on average, more money to spend on vacations abroad now than they did 30 years ago.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_1215",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument requires assuming which one of the following?",
            "Om": "Premise2: If the percentage of british people vacationing abroad was lower 30 years ago, then the british people of 30 years ago must have spent more money on domestic vacations.",
            "O": "Premise1: If more of the british people of 30 years ago had had enough money to vacation abroad, more would have done so.",
            "P": "Statement1: Thirty years ago, the percentage of the british people who vacationed in foreign countries was very small compared with the large percentage of the british population who travel abroad for vacations now. Foreign travel is, and always has been, expensive from britain. Statement2: Therefore, british people must have, on average, more money to spend on vacations now than they did 30 years ago."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Young people believe efforts to reduce pollution, poverty, and war are doomed to failure. This pessimism is probably harmful to humanity's future, because people lose motivation to work for goals they think are unrealizable. Statement2: We must do what we can to prevent this loss of motivation and therefore must enable our children to believe that better futures are possible.\nPremise1: Enabling people to believe that better futures are possible will help prevent the loss of motivation that results from pessimistic beliefs about the future.\nPremise2: If future generations believe that the future can be better, then pollution, poverty, and war will be eliminated.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Young people believe efforts to reduce pollution, poverty, and war are doomed to failure. This pessimism is probably harmful to humanity's future, because people lose motivation to work for goals they think are unrealizable. Statement3: We must do what we can to prevent this loss of motivation because the fact is that believing success will lead to success.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4236",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: If future generations believe that the future can be better, then pollution, poverty, and war will be eliminated.",
            "O": "Premise1: Enabling people to believe that better futures are possible will help prevent the loss of motivation that results from pessimistic beliefs about the future.",
            "P": "Statement1: Young people believe efforts to reduce pollution, poverty, and war are doomed to failure. This pessimism is probably harmful to humanity's future, because people lose motivation to work for goals they think are unrealizable. Statement2: We must do what we can to prevent this loss of motivation and therefore must enable our children to believe that better futures are possible."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Editorialist : to ensure justice in the legal system, citizens must be capable of criticizing anyone involved in determining the punishment of criminals. Statement2: But when the legal system's purpose is seen as deterrence, the system falls into the hands of experts whose specialty is to assess how potential lawbreakers are affected by the system's punishments. Statement3: Because most citizens lack knowledge about such matters, justice is not then ensured in the legal system.\nPremise1: Citizens without knowledge about how the legal system's punishments affect potential lawbreakers are incapable of criticizing experts in that area.\nPremise2: In order to be just, a legal system must consider the effect that punishment will have on individual criminals.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Editorialist : to ensure justice in the legal system, citizens must be capable of criticizing anyone involved in determining the punishment of criminals. Statement2: When the legal system's purpose is seen as deterrence, the system should be in the hands of experts whose specialty is to assess how potential lawbreakers are affected by the system's punishments. Statement3: Which is the basis that justice can be ensured in the legal system.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_3310",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The editorialist's argument requires assuming which one of the following?",
            "Om": "Premise2: In order to be just, a legal system must consider the effect that punishment will have on individual criminals.",
            "O": "Premise1: Citizens without knowledge about how the legal system's punishments affect potential lawbreakers are incapable of criticizing experts in that area.",
            "P": "Statement1: Editorialist : to ensure justice in the legal system, citizens must be capable of criticizing anyone involved in determining the punishment of criminals. Statement2: But when the legal system's purpose is seen as deterrence, the system falls into the hands of experts whose specialty is to assess how potential lawbreakers are affected by the system's punishments. Statement3: Because most citizens lack knowledge about such matters, justice is not then ensured in the legal system."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: The iliad and the odyssey were both attributed to homer in ancient times. But these two poems differ greatly in tone and vocabulary and in certain details of the fictional world they depict. Statement2: So they are almost certainly not the work of the same poet.\nPremise1: Works known to have been written by the same modern writer are as different from each other in the respects mentioned as are the iliad and the odyssey.\nPremise2: Both the iliad and the odyssey were the result of an extended process of oral composition in which many poets were involved.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The iliad and the odyssey were both attributed to homer in ancient times. And these two poems are same in tone and vocabulary and in certain details of the fictional world they depict. Statement3: So they are almost certainly the work of the same poet.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_828",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the reasoning above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Both the iliad and the odyssey were the result of an extended process of oral composition in which many poets were involved.",
            "O": "Premise1: Works known to have been written by the same modern writer are as different from each other in the respects mentioned as are the iliad and the odyssey.",
            "P": "Statement1: The iliad and the odyssey were both attributed to homer in ancient times. But these two poems differ greatly in tone and vocabulary and in certain details of the fictional world they depict. Statement2: So they are almost certainly not the work of the same poet."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Nutritionist : recently a craze has developed for home juicers, $ 300 machines that separate the pulp of fruits and vegetables from the juice they contain. Statement2: Outrageous claims are being made about the benefits of these devices : drinking the juice they produce is said to help one lose weight or acquire a clear complexion, to aid digestion, and even to prevent cancer. Statement3: But there is no indication that juice separated from the pulp of the fruit or vegetable has any properties that it does not have when unseparated. Statement4: Save your money. If you want carrot juice, eat a carrot.\nPremise1: Most people find it much easier to consume a given quantity of nutrients in liquid form than to eat solid foods containing the same quantity of the same nutrients.\nPremise2: To most people who would be tempted to buy a home juicer, $300 would not be a major expense.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Nutritionist : recently a craze has developed for home juicers, $ 300 machines that separate the pulp of fruits and vegetables from the juice they contain. Statement2: Outrageous claims are being made about the benefits of these devices : drinking the juice they produce is said to help one lose weight or acquire a clear complexion, to aid digestion, and even to prevent cancer. Statement3: Although there is no indication that juice separated from the pulp of the fruit or vegetable has any properties that it does not have when unseparated, it is easier to drink liquid than eat solid food. Statement4: To save a major expense. If you want carrot juice, eat a carrot.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3837",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the nutritionist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: To most people who would be tempted to buy a home juicer, $300 would not be a major expense.",
            "O": "Premise1: Most people find it much easier to consume a given quantity of nutrients in liquid form than to eat solid foods containing the same quantity of the same nutrients.",
            "P": "Statement1: Nutritionist : recently a craze has developed for home juicers, $ 300 machines that separate the pulp of fruits and vegetables from the juice they contain. Statement2: Outrageous claims are being made about the benefits of these devices : drinking the juice they produce is said to help one lose weight or acquire a clear complexion, to aid digestion, and even to prevent cancer. Statement3: But there is no indication that juice separated from the pulp of the fruit or vegetable has any properties that it does not have when unseparated. Statement4: Save your money. If you want carrot juice, eat a carrot."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: The city of workney, in raising bus fares from $ 1.00 to $ 1.25, proposed that 18 fare tokens be sold for $ 20.00 to alleviate the extra burden of the fare increase on the city's low-income residents. Statement2: Critics suggested alternatively that 9 fare tokens be sold for $ 10.00, because a $ 20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for low-income riders.\nPremise1: The outlay of $10. 00 for the purchase of 9 fare tokens would not be prohibitive for low-income bus riders.\nPremise2: Low-income residents of workney will continue to ride the buses in the same numbers despite the fare increase.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The city of workney, in raising bus fares from $ 1.00 to $ 1.25, proposed that 18 fare tokens be sold for $ 20.00 to alleviate the extra burden of the fare increase on the city's low-income residents. Statement2: Critics suggested that it is unnecessary because the wages of low-income people have increased by the same proportion.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_651",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The alternative proposal depends on which of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Low-income residents of workney will continue to ride the buses in the same numbers despite the fare increase.",
            "O": "Premise1: The outlay of $10. 00 for the purchase of 9 fare tokens would not be prohibitive for low-income bus riders.",
            "P": "Statement1: The city of workney, in raising bus fares from $ 1.00 to $ 1.25, proposed that 18 fare tokens be sold for $ 20.00 to alleviate the extra burden of the fare increase on the city's low-income residents. Statement2: Critics suggested alternatively that 9 fare tokens be sold for $ 10.00, because a $ 20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for low-income riders."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Millions of irreplaceable exhibits in natural history museums are currently allowed to decay. Statement2: Yet without analyses of eggs from museums, the studies linking pesticides with the decline of birds of prey would have been impossible. Statement3: Therefore, funds must be raised to preserve at least those exhibits that will be most valuable to science in the future.\nPremise1: It can be known at this time what data will be of most use to scientific investigators in the future\nPremise2: If a museum exhibit is irreplaceable, its preservation is of an importance that overrides economic considerations\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Millions of exhibits in natural history museums are currently allowed to decay. Statement2: Yet without analyses of eggs from museums, the studies linking pesticides with the decline of birds of prey would have been impossible. Statement3: Therefore, funds must be raised to preserve at least those exhibits that are irreplaceable.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4452",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument presupposes that",
            "Om": "Premise2: If a museum exhibit is irreplaceable, its preservation is of an importance that overrides economic considerations",
            "O": "Premise1: It can be known at this time what data will be of most use to scientific investigators in the future",
            "P": "Statement1: Millions of irreplaceable exhibits in natural history museums are currently allowed to decay. Statement2: Yet without analyses of eggs from museums, the studies linking pesticides with the decline of birds of prey would have been impossible. Statement3: Therefore, funds must be raised to preserve at least those exhibits that will be most valuable to science in the future."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Analyst : the increasing complexity of computers may lead those who pursue a career in computer programming to think that job security and higher wages can be attained by becoming more specialized as the field becomes more complex. Even though specialists earn higher wages than generalists within computer programming, this move is ill-advised because one risks specializing in a technology that will become obsolete. Statement2: Consider the plight of people who used to repair eight-track tape players.\nPremise1: The current technological knowledge of most specialists within computer programming could also be applied to many technologies that will replace present ones.\nPremise2: The average wages earned by generalists within computer programming will never be as high as the average wages earned by specialists within computer programming.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Analyst : the increasing complexity of computers may lead those who pursue a career in computer programming to think that job security and higher wages can be attained by becoming more specialized as the field becomes more complex. Even though specialists earn higher wages than generalists within computer programming, this move is reasonable because computers will be undispensable in our life. Statement3: Consider the plight of people who used to repair eight-track tape players.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3774",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the analyst's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The average wages earned by generalists within computer programming will never be as high as the average wages earned by specialists within computer programming.",
            "O": "Premise1: The current technological knowledge of most specialists within computer programming could also be applied to many technologies that will replace present ones.",
            "P": "Statement1: Analyst : the increasing complexity of computers may lead those who pursue a career in computer programming to think that job security and higher wages can be attained by becoming more specialized as the field becomes more complex. Even though specialists earn higher wages than generalists within computer programming, this move is ill-advised because one risks specializing in a technology that will become obsolete. Statement2: Consider the plight of people who used to repair eight-track tape players."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Parent : the city education department is unable to distinguish between annoyances and important problems. Statement2: For instance, prohibiting students from having cell phones is an overreaction. If a student uses one and thus interferes with instruction, confiscate it. Statement3: All in all, we need educational leadership that can solve problems, not create them.\nPremise1: Students having cell phones does not constitute an important problem for the city schools.\nPremise2: Students have no need for cell phones in school.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Parent : the city education department is unable to distinguish between annoyances and important problems. Statement2: For instance, prohibiting students from having cell phones in school is an reaction.. if a student uses one and thus interferes with instruction, confiscate it because school can offer all assistances without using students' phone.. Statement4: All in all, we need educational leadership that can solve problems, not create them.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3253",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption made by the parent?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Students have no need for cell phones in school.",
            "O": "Premise1: Students having cell phones does not constitute an important problem for the city schools.",
            "P": "Statement1: Parent : the city education department is unable to distinguish between annoyances and important problems. Statement2: For instance, prohibiting students from having cell phones is an overreaction. If a student uses one and thus interferes with instruction, confiscate it. Statement3: All in all, we need educational leadership that can solve problems, not create them."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: For similar cars and drivers, automobile insurance for collision damage has always cost more in greatport than in fairmont. Police studies, however, show that cars owned by greatport residents are, on average, slightly less likely to be involved in a collision than cars in fairmont. Statement2: Clearly, therefore, insurance companies are making a greater profit on collision-damage insurance in greatport than in fairmont.\nPremise1: Repairing typical collision damage does not cost more in greatport than in fairmont.\nPremise2: There are no more motorists in greatport than in fairmont.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: For similar cars and drivers, automobile insurance for collision damage has always cost more in greatport than in fairmont. Police studies, however, show that cars owned by greatport residents are, on average, slightly less likely to be involved in a collision than cars in fairmont. Statement3: Because,greatport people don't drive a lot, but you can see more cars on the road in fairmont.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4295",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: There are no more motorists in greatport than in fairmont.",
            "O": "Premise1: Repairing typical collision damage does not cost more in greatport than in fairmont.",
            "P": "Statement1: For similar cars and drivers, automobile insurance for collision damage has always cost more in greatport than in fairmont. Police studies, however, show that cars owned by greatport residents are, on average, slightly less likely to be involved in a collision than cars in fairmont. Statement2: Clearly, therefore, insurance companies are making a greater profit on collision-damage insurance in greatport than in fairmont."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Researchers examined 100 people suffering from herniated disks in their backs. Five of them were found to have a defect in a particular gene. The researchers also examined 100 people who had no problems with the disks in their backs ; none had the genetic defect. Statement2: They concluded that the genetic defect increases the likelihood of herniated disks.\nPremise1: When the researchers examined the families of the 5 subjects who had the defective gene, they found that 30 family members also had the defective gene, and each of them suffered from herniated disks.\nPremise2: The researchers also examined a group of 100 people who did not have the defective gene; 80 were found to have herniated disks in their backs.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Researchers examined 100 people suffering from herniated disks in their backs. Five of them were found to have a defect in a particular gene. The researchers also examined 100 people who had no problems with the disks in their backs ; they had the genetic defect yet. Statement4: They concluded that genetic defects did not have much to do with the likelihood of a herniated disk.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_1207",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the researchers' reasoning?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The researchers also examined a group of 100 people who did not have the defective gene; 80 were found to have herniated disks in their backs.",
            "O": "Premise1: When the researchers examined the families of the 5 subjects who had the defective gene, they found that 30 family members also had the defective gene, and each of them suffered from herniated disks.",
            "P": "Statement1: Researchers examined 100 people suffering from herniated disks in their backs. Five of them were found to have a defect in a particular gene. The researchers also examined 100 people who had no problems with the disks in their backs ; none had the genetic defect. Statement2: They concluded that the genetic defect increases the likelihood of herniated disks."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Biologists studying plant life in the prehistoric rainforest by utilizing samples of ancient ice and fossilized evidence of biological processes found that most of the plants removed an astonishingly small amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Statement2: One biologist found that a certain tree currently found in the rainforest absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at a greater rate than any tree on the planet. Statement3: The biologist hypothesized that the prevalence of this tree in the prehistoric rainforest accounts for the other plants'failure to remove larger amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.\nPremise1: The trees currently found in the rainforest are largely hybrids and a product of crossbreeding that occurred in the late twentieth century.\nPremise2: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained steady since prehistoric times.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Biologists studying plant life in the prehistoric rainforest by utilizing samples of ancient ice and fossilized evidence of biological processes found that most of the plants removed an astonishingly small amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Statement2: One biologist found that a certain tree currently found in the rainforest absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at a greater rate than any tree on the planet. Statement3: The biologist hypothesized that the prevalence of this tree in the prehistoric rainforest indicates that prevalence carbon dioxide concentrations were much lower than today",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_495",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, would most seriously undermine the biologist's hypothesis?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained steady since prehistoric times.",
            "O": "Premise1: The trees currently found in the rainforest are largely hybrids and a product of crossbreeding that occurred in the late twentieth century.",
            "P": "Statement1: Biologists studying plant life in the prehistoric rainforest by utilizing samples of ancient ice and fossilized evidence of biological processes found that most of the plants removed an astonishingly small amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Statement2: One biologist found that a certain tree currently found in the rainforest absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at a greater rate than any tree on the planet. Statement3: The biologist hypothesized that the prevalence of this tree in the prehistoric rainforest accounts for the other plants'failure to remove larger amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Statement2: Although this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.\nPremise1: Humans often become ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.\nPremise2: Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Statement3: And this would completely reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal makes great sense, because lobsters can live in a very healthy environment.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1566",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Contaminants in the harbor other than sewage are equally harmful to lobsters.",
            "O": "Premise1: Humans often become ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases.",
            "P": "Statement1: Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to contract gill diseases when sewage contaminates their water. Under a recent proposal, millions of gallons of local sewage each day would be rerouted many kilometers offshore. Statement2: Although this would substantially reduce the amount of sewage in the harbor where lobsters are caught, the proposal is pointless, because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Twenty years ago the republic of rosinia produced nearly 100 million tons of potatoes, but last year the harvest barely reached 60 million tons. Statement2: Agricultural researchers, who have failed to develop new higher-yielding strains of potatoes, are to blame for this decrease, since they have been concerned only with their own research and not with the needs of rosinia.\nPremise1: Strains of potatoes most commonly grown in rosinia could not have produced the yields last year that they once did.\nPremise2: Agricultural research in rosinia is funded by government grants.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Twenty years ago the republic of rosinia produced nearly 100 million tons of potatoes, but last year the harvest barely reached 60 million tons. Statement2: Agricultural researchers, who have failed to develop new higher-yielding strains of potatoes, are to blame for this decrease, since they used money from taxpayers to do research and not concerned with the needs of taxpayers.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1847",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Agricultural research in rosinia is funded by government grants.",
            "O": "Premise1: Strains of potatoes most commonly grown in rosinia could not have produced the yields last year that they once did.",
            "P": "Statement1: Twenty years ago the republic of rosinia produced nearly 100 million tons of potatoes, but last year the harvest barely reached 60 million tons. Statement2: Agricultural researchers, who have failed to develop new higher-yielding strains of potatoes, are to blame for this decrease, since they have been concerned only with their own research and not with the needs of rosinia."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: People who have specialized knowledge about a scientific or technical issue are systematically excluded from juries for trials where that issue is relevant. Statement2: Thus, trial by jury is not a fair means of settling disputes involving such issues.\nPremise1: The more a juror knows about a particular scientific or technical issue involved in a trial, the more likely it is that the juror will be prejudiced in favor of one of the litigating parties before the trial begins.\nPremise2: The more complicated the issue being litigated, the less likely it is that a juror without specialized knowledge of the field involved will be able to comprehend the testimony being given.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: People who have specialized knowledge about a scientific or technical issue are systematically included in juries for trials where that issue is relevant. Statement2: Thus, trial by jury is not a fair means of settling disputes involving suchissues because they may have bias..",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_264",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The more complicated the issue being litigated, the less likely it is that a juror without specialized knowledge of the field involved will be able to comprehend the testimony being given.",
            "O": "Premise1: The more a juror knows about a particular scientific or technical issue involved in a trial, the more likely it is that the juror will be prejudiced in favor of one of the litigating parties before the trial begins.",
            "P": "Statement1: People who have specialized knowledge about a scientific or technical issue are systematically excluded from juries for trials where that issue is relevant. Statement2: Thus, trial by jury is not a fair means of settling disputes involving such issues."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Mayor pollister always repays his contributors by passing the laws they desire. Statement2: Since mayor pollister recently passed the city's first clean air act, he must have had a contributor to repay.\nPremise1: Mayor pollister would not have passed the law unless he was doing so for a contributor.\nPremise2: The city will be benefited by the passage of the clean air act.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Mayor pollister always repays his contributors by passing the laws they desire. Statement2: The mayor of indianapolis passed the city's first clean air act because the city's air has gotten worse recently.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_459",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The city will be benefited by the passage of the clean air act.",
            "O": "Premise1: Mayor pollister would not have passed the law unless he was doing so for a contributor.",
            "P": "Statement1: Mayor pollister always repays his contributors by passing the laws they desire. Statement2: Since mayor pollister recently passed the city's first clean air act, he must have had a contributor to repay."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: It is the mark of a superior conductor that he or she has the authority to insist, even with a top orchestra, that rehearsal work must be intensified. Statement2: This authority can not simply be claimed ; the conductor must earn it by winning the orchestra's respect for the artistic interpretations he or she is currently pursuing.\nPremise1: Top orchestras can appreciate the merits of an interpretation even before they have brought it to full realization.\nPremise2: Top orchestras are always ready to put in additional work on rehearsals if the conductor considers additional rehearsing necessary.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: It is the mark of a superior conductor that he or she has the authority to insist, even with a top orchestra, that rehearsal work must be intensified. Statement2: This authority can not simply be claimedbut requires the commander to give a reasonable explanation",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3047",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "In taking the position outlined, the author presupposes which one of the following?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Top orchestras are always ready to put in additional work on rehearsals if the conductor considers additional rehearsing necessary.",
            "O": "Premise1: Top orchestras can appreciate the merits of an interpretation even before they have brought it to full realization.",
            "P": "Statement1: It is the mark of a superior conductor that he or she has the authority to insist, even with a top orchestra, that rehearsal work must be intensified. Statement2: This authority can not simply be claimed ; the conductor must earn it by winning the orchestra's respect for the artistic interpretations he or she is currently pursuing."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Outsourcing is the practice of obtaining from an independent supplier a product or service that a company has previously provided for itself. Statement2: Since a company 's chief objective is to realize the highest possible year-end profits, any product or service that can be obtained from an independent supplier for less than it would cost the company to provide the product or service on its own should be outsourced.\nPremise1: Successful outsourcing requires a company to provide its suppliers with information about its products and plans that can fall into the hands of its competitors and give them a business advantage.\nPremise2: When a company decides to use an independent supplier for a product or service, the independent supplier sometimes hires members of the company's staff who formerly made the product or provided the service that the independent supplier now supplies.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Outsourcing is the practice of obtaining from an independent supplier a product or service that a company has previously provided for itself. Statement2: Despite that a company 's chief objective is to realize the highest possible year-end profits, not any product or service that can be obtained from an independent supplier for less than it would cost the company to provide the product or service on its own should be outsourced, because there could be a risk of disclosure of core information.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3086",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: When a company decides to use an independent supplier for a product or service, the independent supplier sometimes hires members of the company's staff who formerly made the product or provided the service that the independent supplier now supplies.",
            "O": "Premise1: Successful outsourcing requires a company to provide its suppliers with information about its products and plans that can fall into the hands of its competitors and give them a business advantage.",
            "P": "Statement1: Outsourcing is the practice of obtaining from an independent supplier a product or service that a company has previously provided for itself. Statement2: Since a company 's chief objective is to realize the highest possible year-end profits, any product or service that can be obtained from an independent supplier for less than it would cost the company to provide the product or service on its own should be outsourced."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: In 1960's studies of rats, scientists found that crowding increases the number of attacks among the animals significantly. Statement2: But in recent experiments in which rhesus monkeys were placed in crowded conditions, although there was an increase in instances of\" coping\" behavior-such as submissive gestures and avoidance of dominant individuals-attacks did not become any more frequent. Statement3: Therefore it is not likely that, for any species of monkey, crowding increases aggression as significantly as was seen in rats.\nPremise1: Rhesus monkeys respond with aggression to a wider range of stimuli than any other monkeys do.\nPremise2: Some of the coping behavior displayed by rhesus monkeys is similar to behavior rhesus monkeys use to bring to an end an attack that has begun.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In 1960's studies of rats, scientists found that crowding increases the number of attacks among the animals significantly. Statement2: In recent experiments in which rhesus monkeys were placed in crowded conditions, the fact is that there was an increase in instances of\" coping\" behavior, such as submissive gestures and avoidance of dominant individuals Statement3: Therefore it is not likely that, for rhesus monkey, they also have the potential for increased aggression.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_3196",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Some of the coping behavior displayed by rhesus monkeys is similar to behavior rhesus monkeys use to bring to an end an attack that has begun.",
            "O": "Premise1: Rhesus monkeys respond with aggression to a wider range of stimuli than any other monkeys do.",
            "P": "Statement1: In 1960's studies of rats, scientists found that crowding increases the number of attacks among the animals significantly. Statement2: But in recent experiments in which rhesus monkeys were placed in crowded conditions, although there was an increase in instances of\" coping\" behavior-such as submissive gestures and avoidance of dominant individuals-attacks did not become any more frequent. Statement3: Therefore it is not likely that, for any species of monkey, crowding increases aggression as significantly as was seen in rats."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Psychologist : identical twins are virtually the same genetically. Statement2: Moreover, according to some studies, identical twins separated at birth and brought up in vastly different environments show a strong tendency to report similar ethical beliefs, dress in the same way, and have similar careers. Statement3: Thus, many of our inclinations must be genetic in origin, and not subject to environmental influences.\nPremise1: Identical twins who grow up together tend to develop different beliefs, tastes, and careers in order to differentiate themselves from each other.\nPremise2: While some studies of identical twins separated at birth reveal a high percentage of similar personality traits, they also show a few differences.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Psychologist : identical twins are virtually the same genetically. Statement2: Moreover, according to some studies, identical twins separated at birth and brought up in vastly different environments show a strong tendency to report similar ethical beliefs, dress in the same way, and have similar careers. Statement3: Thus, these highly similar traits make no difference in the behavior of identical twins though they live in different environment.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_239",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the psychologist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: While some studies of identical twins separated at birth reveal a high percentage of similar personality traits, they also show a few differences.",
            "O": "Premise1: Identical twins who grow up together tend to develop different beliefs, tastes, and careers in order to differentiate themselves from each other.",
            "P": "Statement1: Psychologist : identical twins are virtually the same genetically. Statement2: Moreover, according to some studies, identical twins separated at birth and brought up in vastly different environments show a strong tendency to report similar ethical beliefs, dress in the same way, and have similar careers. Statement3: Thus, many of our inclinations must be genetic in origin, and not subject to environmental influences."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice typically produce antibodies that destroy the virus by binding to proteins on its surface. Statement2: Mice infected with the herpesvirus generally develop keratitis, a degenerative disease affecting part of the eye. Statement3: Since proteins on the surface of cells in this part of the eye closely resemble those on the herpesvirus surface, scientists hypothesize that these cases of keratitis are caused by antibodies to the herpesvirus.\nPremise1: Mice infected with a new strain of the herpesvirus that has different surface proteins did not develop keratitis\nPremise2: Mice that are infected with the herpesvirus but do not develop keratitis produce as many antibodies as infected mice that do develop keratitis\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice typically produce antibodies that destroy the virus by binding to proteins on its surface. Statement2: Mice infected with the herpesvirus may develop keratitis, a degenerative disease affecting part of the eye. Statement3: Since proteins on the surface of cells in this part of the eye are different from those on the herpesvirus surface, scientists hypothesize that these cases of keratitis are not caused by antibodies to the herpesvirus.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_2160",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most helps to support the scientists' reasoning?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Mice that are infected with the herpesvirus but do not develop keratitis produce as many antibodies as infected mice that do develop keratitis",
            "O": "Premise1: Mice infected with a new strain of the herpesvirus that has different surface proteins did not develop keratitis",
            "P": "Statement1: In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice typically produce antibodies that destroy the virus by binding to proteins on its surface. Statement2: Mice infected with the herpesvirus generally develop keratitis, a degenerative disease affecting part of the eye. Statement3: Since proteins on the surface of cells in this part of the eye closely resemble those on the herpesvirus surface, scientists hypothesize that these cases of keratitis are caused by antibodies to the herpesvirus."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Automobile dealer's advertisement : the highway traffic safety institute reports that the pz 1000 has the fewest injuries per accident of any car in its class. Statement2: This shows that the pz 1000 is one of the safest cars available today.\nPremise1: Cars in the class to which the pz 1000 belongs are more likely to be involved in accidents than are other types of cars.\nPremise2: The difference between the number of injuries per accident for the pz 1000 and that for other cars in its class is quite pronounced.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Automobile dealer's advertisement : the highway traffic safety institute reports that the numbers of injuries in pz 1000 is similar to that of the other cars.. Statement2: This shows that the pz 1000 is not one of the most dangerous cars available today.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1913",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument in the advertisement?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The difference between the number of injuries per accident for the pz 1000 and that for other cars in its class is quite pronounced.",
            "O": "Premise1: Cars in the class to which the pz 1000 belongs are more likely to be involved in accidents than are other types of cars.",
            "P": "Statement1: Automobile dealer's advertisement : the highway traffic safety institute reports that the pz 1000 has the fewest injuries per accident of any car in its class. Statement2: This shows that the pz 1000 is one of the safest cars available today."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: A student has taken twelve courses and received a b in a majority of them. Statement2: The student is now taking another course and will probably, given her record, receive a b in it.\nPremise1: The student previously studied alone but is receiving help from several outstanding students during the present course.\nPremise2: The current course is a continuation of one of the twelve courses in which the student received a b.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A student has taken twelve courses and received a b in a majority of them. Statement2: The student is now taking another course and will probably, given her record, receive a a in it.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_3509",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following, if true, strengthens the argument except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: The current course is a continuation of one of the twelve courses in which the student received a b.",
            "O": "Premise1: The student previously studied alone but is receiving help from several outstanding students during the present course.",
            "P": "Statement1: A student has taken twelve courses and received a b in a majority of them. Statement2: The student is now taking another course and will probably, given her record, receive a b in it."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Building a space station, in which astronauts would live for a considerable time, is essential even if the space station project were to contribute no new knowledge about space or earth that could not otherwise be obtained. Statement2: For future missions to explore mars, we will need the medical knowledge that the space station project will give us about the limits of human capacities to live in spacecraft for an extended time.\nPremise1: The exploration of mars will be carried out by people traveling in spacecraft and not by robots alone\nPremise2: Living in a spaceship for an extended time presents insurmountable medical problems\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Building a space station, in which astronauts who know medical medical knowledge would live for a considerable time, is essential even if the space station project were to contribute no new knowledge about space or earth that could not otherwise be obtained. Statement2: For future missions to explore mars, we will need the medical knowledge that can improve medical living environment for astronauts to live in spacecraft for an extended time.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1631",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument makes the assumption that",
            "Om": "Premise2: Living in a spaceship for an extended time presents insurmountable medical problems",
            "O": "Premise1: The exploration of mars will be carried out by people traveling in spacecraft and not by robots alone",
            "P": "Statement1: Building a space station, in which astronauts would live for a considerable time, is essential even if the space station project were to contribute no new knowledge about space or earth that could not otherwise be obtained. Statement2: For future missions to explore mars, we will need the medical knowledge that the space station project will give us about the limits of human capacities to live in spacecraft for an extended time."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Curator : since ancient times, the fine arts were developed and sustained with the aid of large subsidies from the aristocracies and religious institutions that were the public sectors of their day ; it is doubtful that the arts would have survived without these subsidies. Statement2: Clearly, contemporary societies should fulfill their obligation as stewards of cultural heritage without the assistance of aristocracies or religious institutions, so governments must help finance the maintenance, advancement, and enrichment of the fine arts today.\nPremise1: Serving as stewards of cultural heritage requires that contemporary societies help to maintain the fine arts.\nPremise2: Maintenance, advancement, and enrichment of the fine arts in any era require governmental subsidies.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Curator : since ancient times, the fine arts were developed and sustained with the aid of large subsidies from the aristocracies and religious institutions whose property come from government grants ; it is doubtful that the arts would have survived without these subsidies. Statement2: Clearly, without the assistance of aristocracies or religious institutions governments must help finance the maintenance, advancement, and enrichment of the fine arts today.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_2012",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The curator's argument depends on assuming which one of the following?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Maintenance, advancement, and enrichment of the fine arts in any era require governmental subsidies.",
            "O": "Premise1: Serving as stewards of cultural heritage requires that contemporary societies help to maintain the fine arts.",
            "P": "Statement1: Curator : since ancient times, the fine arts were developed and sustained with the aid of large subsidies from the aristocracies and religious institutions that were the public sectors of their day ; it is doubtful that the arts would have survived without these subsidies. Statement2: Clearly, contemporary societies should fulfill their obligation as stewards of cultural heritage without the assistance of aristocracies or religious institutions, so governments must help finance the maintenance, advancement, and enrichment of the fine arts today."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: The supernova event of 1987 is interesting in that there is still no evidence of the neutron star that current theory says should have remained after a supernova of that size. This is in spite of the fact that many of the most sensitive instruments ever developed have searched for the tell-tale pulse of radiation that neutron stars emit. Statement2: Thus, current theory is wrong in claiming that supernovas of a certain size always produce neutron stars.\nPremise1: Sensitive astronomical instruments have detected neutron stars much farther away than the location of the 1987 supernova.\nPremise2: Most supernova remnants that astronomers have detected have a neutron star nearby.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The supernova event of 1987 is interesting in that there is still no evidence of the neutron star that current theory says should have remained after a supernova of that size. This is in spite of the fact that many of the most sensitive instruments ever developed have searched for the tell-tale pulse of radiation that neutron stars emit. Statement3: However, current theory is still probably ture in claiming that supernovas of a certain size always produce neutron stars.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_3108",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Most supernova remnants that astronomers have detected have a neutron star nearby.",
            "O": "Premise1: Sensitive astronomical instruments have detected neutron stars much farther away than the location of the 1987 supernova.",
            "P": "Statement1: The supernova event of 1987 is interesting in that there is still no evidence of the neutron star that current theory says should have remained after a supernova of that size. This is in spite of the fact that many of the most sensitive instruments ever developed have searched for the tell-tale pulse of radiation that neutron stars emit. Statement2: Thus, current theory is wrong in claiming that supernovas of a certain size always produce neutron stars."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Once children begin to read they acquire new vocabulary most naturally as the indirect result of reading difficult, challenging material. Statement2: The major alternative -- direct studying of new vocabulary items -- is less natural ; most people are not so inclined. From age six to age thirteen, children learn thousands of new words a year, mostly through reading ; direct studying accounts for less than one-tenth of all new words learned. Statement3: So it is bound to be inefficient for young students to learn new vocabulary by direct studying.\nPremise1: Children from age six to age thirteen spend vastly much more time reading than they spend directly studying new vocabulary.\nPremise2: Reading difficult material sometimes leaves one confused as to the meaning of certain words.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Once children begin to read they acquire new vocabulary most naturally as the indirect result of reading difficult, challenging material. Statement2: The major alternative -- direct studying of new vocabulary items -- is less natural ; most people are not so inclined. From age six to age thirteen, children learn thousands of new words a year, mostly through reading ; direct studying accounts for less than one-tenth of all new words learned. Statement4: So it is bound to be more understandable for young students to learn new vocabulary by reading.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_4383",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Reading difficult material sometimes leaves one confused as to the meaning of certain words.",
            "O": "Premise1: Children from age six to age thirteen spend vastly much more time reading than they spend directly studying new vocabulary.",
            "P": "Statement1: Once children begin to read they acquire new vocabulary most naturally as the indirect result of reading difficult, challenging material. Statement2: The major alternative -- direct studying of new vocabulary items -- is less natural ; most people are not so inclined. From age six to age thirteen, children learn thousands of new words a year, mostly through reading ; direct studying accounts for less than one-tenth of all new words learned. Statement3: So it is bound to be inefficient for young students to learn new vocabulary by direct studying."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Electronic cigarettes should not be subject to the same regulation as other products that contain nicotine. Statement2: Recent studies indicate that electronic cigarettes help people quit smoking by providing nicotine without the harmful tar and additive chemicals. Statement3: Although electronic cigarettes also contain their own additives, they are much less harmful in the short-term than traditional cigarettes. Statement4: People who smoke electronic cigarettes are ten times less likely to die from cancer than smokers of traditional cigarettes.\nPremise1: The current regulations are designed to prevent children from using nicotine.\nPremise2: The additives in electronic cigarettes have not been tested as thoroughly as those in traditional cigarettes.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Electronic cigarettes should be subject to the same regulation as other products that contain nicotine. Statement2: Recent studies indicate that electronic cigarettes help people quit smoking by providing nicotine without the harmful tar. Statement3: But electronic cigarettes also contain their own additives, they are much more harmful. Statement4: People who smoke electronic cigarettes are similar likely to die from cancer as smokers of traditional cigarettes.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_439",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following most weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The additives in electronic cigarettes have not been tested as thoroughly as those in traditional cigarettes.",
            "O": "Premise1: The current regulations are designed to prevent children from using nicotine.",
            "P": "Statement1: Electronic cigarettes should not be subject to the same regulation as other products that contain nicotine. Statement2: Recent studies indicate that electronic cigarettes help people quit smoking by providing nicotine without the harmful tar and additive chemicals. Statement3: Although electronic cigarettes also contain their own additives, they are much less harmful in the short-term than traditional cigarettes. Statement4: People who smoke electronic cigarettes are ten times less likely to die from cancer than smokers of traditional cigarettes."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Global ecological problems reduce to the problem of balancing supply and demand. Statement2: Supply is strictly confined by the earth's limitations. Demand, however, is essentially unlimited, as there are no limits on the potential demands made by humans. Statement3: The natural tendency for there to be an imbalance between demand and sustainable supply is the source of these global problems. Statement4: Therefore, any solutions require reducing current human demand.\nPremise1: Actual human demand exceeds the earth's sustainable supply.\nPremise2: Supply and demand tend to balance themselves in the long run.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Global ecological problems reduce to the problem of balancing supply and demand. Statement2: Supply is strictly confined by the earth's limitations. Demand, however, is essentially unlimited, as there are no limits on the potential demands made by humans. In the future, the supply of environment will ultimately not be enough to meet human needs. Statement4: The natural tendency for there to be an imbalance between demand and sustainable supply is the source of these global problems. Statement5: But in the long run, we don't need to think about solutions to these problems.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_855",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Supply and demand tend to balance themselves in the long run.",
            "O": "Premise1: Actual human demand exceeds the earth's sustainable supply.",
            "P": "Statement1: Global ecological problems reduce to the problem of balancing supply and demand. Statement2: Supply is strictly confined by the earth's limitations. Demand, however, is essentially unlimited, as there are no limits on the potential demands made by humans. Statement3: The natural tendency for there to be an imbalance between demand and sustainable supply is the source of these global problems. Statement4: Therefore, any solutions require reducing current human demand."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Fares on the city-run public buses in greenville are subsidized by city tax revenues, but among the beneficiaries of the low fares are many people who commute from outside the city to jobs in greenville. Statement2: Some city councillors argue that city taxes should be used primarily to benefit the people who pay them, and therefore that bus fares should be raised enough to cover the cost of the service.\nPremise1: Voters in the city, many of whom benefit from the low transit fares, are strongly opposed to increasing local taxes.\nPremise2: Increasing transit fares would disadvantage those residents of the city whose low incomes make them exempt from city taxes, and all city councilors agree that these residents should be able to take advantage of city-run services.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Fares on the city-run public buses in greenville are subsidized by city tax revenues, but among the beneficiaries of the low fares are many people who commute from outside the city to jobs in greenville. Statement2: Some city councillors argue that city taxes should be used primarily to benefit the people who pay them, and therefore that people who pay taxes should be expanded.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1877",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following, if true, would weaken the argument advanced by the city councilors except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: Increasing transit fares would disadvantage those residents of the city whose low incomes make them exempt from city taxes, and all city councilors agree that these residents should be able to take advantage of city-run services.",
            "O": "Premise1: Voters in the city, many of whom benefit from the low transit fares, are strongly opposed to increasing local taxes.",
            "P": "Statement1: Fares on the city-run public buses in greenville are subsidized by city tax revenues, but among the beneficiaries of the low fares are many people who commute from outside the city to jobs in greenville. Statement2: Some city councillors argue that city taxes should be used primarily to benefit the people who pay them, and therefore that bus fares should be raised enough to cover the cost of the service."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Critics of a new law that will allow extra-long passenger trains to travel on the state's railroads are mistaken in claiming that these extra-long passenger trains are more dangerous than other types of passenger trains. In our neighboring state p, where extra-long passenger trains have been permitted, these extra-long passenger trains have resulted in fewer fatalities per mile than other types of passenger trains used in our state. Statement2: Clearly, extra-long passenger trains are safer than other types of passenger trains.\nPremise1: Fatalities involving all trains in state p are fewer due to lower speed limits and stricter training requirements for train conductors.\nPremise2: The new law would require the extra-long passenger trains to be equipped with special brakes that would allow them to stop more quickly than other trains.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Critics of a new law that will allow extra-long passenger trains to travel on the state's railroads are true in claiming that these extra-long passenger trains are more dangerous than other types of passenger trains. In our neighboring state p, where extra-long passenger trains have been permitted, these extra-long passenger trains have resulted in more fatalities per mile than other types of passenger trains used in our state. Statement3: Clearly, extra-long passenger trains are more dangerous than other types of passenger trains.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3285",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The new law would require the extra-long passenger trains to be equipped with special brakes that would allow them to stop more quickly than other trains.",
            "O": "Premise1: Fatalities involving all trains in state p are fewer due to lower speed limits and stricter training requirements for train conductors.",
            "P": "Statement1: Critics of a new law that will allow extra-long passenger trains to travel on the state's railroads are mistaken in claiming that these extra-long passenger trains are more dangerous than other types of passenger trains. In our neighboring state p, where extra-long passenger trains have been permitted, these extra-long passenger trains have resulted in fewer fatalities per mile than other types of passenger trains used in our state. Statement2: Clearly, extra-long passenger trains are safer than other types of passenger trains."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Cognitive psychologist : sent2: the argument against iq as a hereditary trait that is fixed throughout one 's lifetime ignores the evidence of eye orientation. Statement2: That is, there is a high correlation between the speed in which a person 's eyes orient towards a stimulus and that person 's iq. Statement3: Specifically, an experiment measured the number of milliseconds subjects required to orient their eyes to the where on a large screen a word was flashed. Statement4: The study found that the more rapid the response the higher that person 's iq.\nPremise1: The speed in which a person orients his or her eyes towards a stimulus is a skill that cannot be modified by experience.\nPremise2: The speed at which one can orient one's eye to a stimulus has also been highly correlated with overall health.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Cognitive psychologist : Statement2: The argument against iq as a hereditary trait that is fixed throughout one 's lifetime ignores the evidence of eye orientation. Statement3: That is, there is a high correlation between the speed in which a person 's eyes orient towards a stimulus and that person 's iq.and a person's physical health is also related to the person's iq, in other words, the higher a person's iq is, the healthier their body is. Statement4: Specifically, an experiment measured the number of milliseconds subjects required to orient their eyes to the where on a large screen a word was flashed. Statement5: The study found that the more rapid the response the higher that person 's iq.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1190",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption the cognitive psychologist makes?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The speed at which one can orient one's eye to a stimulus has also been highly correlated with overall health.",
            "O": "Premise1: The speed in which a person orients his or her eyes towards a stimulus is a skill that cannot be modified by experience.",
            "P": "Statement1: Cognitive psychologist : sent2: the argument against iq as a hereditary trait that is fixed throughout one 's lifetime ignores the evidence of eye orientation. Statement2: That is, there is a high correlation between the speed in which a person 's eyes orient towards a stimulus and that person 's iq. Statement3: Specifically, an experiment measured the number of milliseconds subjects required to orient their eyes to the where on a large screen a word was flashed. Statement4: The study found that the more rapid the response the higher that person 's iq."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: For several centuries there have been hairless dogs in western mexico and in coastal peru. It is very unlikely that a trait as rare as hairlessness emerged on two separate occasions. Statement2: Since the dogs have never existed in the wild, and the vast mountainous jungle separating these two regions would have made overland travel between them extremely difficult centuries ago, the dogs must have been transported from one of these regions to the other by boat, probably during trading expeditions.\nPremise1: Centuries ago, it was easier to travel by boat between western mexico and coastal peru than to travel by an overland route.\nPremise2: Hairless dogs have never been found anywhere except in the regions of western mexico and coastal peru.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: For several centuries there have been hairless dogs in western mexico and in coastal peru. Statement3: Since these dogs are not a bred breed and only mexico has a natural environment suitable for these dogs, the dogs must have been transported from mexico to peru.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2187",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption that the argument requires?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Hairless dogs have never been found anywhere except in the regions of western mexico and coastal peru.",
            "O": "Premise1: Centuries ago, it was easier to travel by boat between western mexico and coastal peru than to travel by an overland route.",
            "P": "Statement1: For several centuries there have been hairless dogs in western mexico and in coastal peru. It is very unlikely that a trait as rare as hairlessness emerged on two separate occasions. Statement2: Since the dogs have never existed in the wild, and the vast mountainous jungle separating these two regions would have made overland travel between them extremely difficult centuries ago, the dogs must have been transported from one of these regions to the other by boat, probably during trading expeditions."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Gotera : infants lack the motor ability required to voluntarily produce particular sounds, but produce various babbling sounds randomly. Most children are several years old before they can voluntarily produce most of the vowel and consonant sounds of their language. Statement2: We can conclude that speech acquisition is entirely a motor control process rather than a process that is abstract or mental.\nPremise1: Speech acquisition is a function only of one's ability to produce the sounds of spoken language.\nPremise2: Control of tongue and mouth movements requires a sophisticated level of mental development.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Gotera : infants lack the motor ability required to voluntarily produce particular sounds, but produce various babbling sounds randomly. Most children are several years old before they can voluntarily produce most of the vowel and consonant sounds of their language. Statement3: We can conclude that speech acquisition is entirely a motor control process this process often requires a more complex level of psychological development, which involves the child's brain and body working together perfectly.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2697",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by gotera's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Control of tongue and mouth movements requires a sophisticated level of mental development.",
            "O": "Premise1: Speech acquisition is a function only of one's ability to produce the sounds of spoken language.",
            "P": "Statement1: Gotera : infants lack the motor ability required to voluntarily produce particular sounds, but produce various babbling sounds randomly. Most children are several years old before they can voluntarily produce most of the vowel and consonant sounds of their language. Statement2: We can conclude that speech acquisition is entirely a motor control process rather than a process that is abstract or mental."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Sometimes when their trainer gives the hand signal for\" do something creative together, \" two dolphins circle a pool in tandem and then leap through the air simultaneously. On other occasions the same signal elicits synchronized backward swims or tail-waving. These behaviors are not simply learned responses to a given stimulus. Statement2: Rather, dolphins are capable of higher cognitive functions that may include the use of language and forethought.\nPremise1: The dolphins often exhibit complex new responses to the hand signal.\nPremise2: Dolphins do not interact with humans the way they interact with one another.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Sometimes when their trainer gives the hand signal for\" do something creative together, \" two dolphins circle a pool in tandem and then leap through the air simultaneously. But on other occasions the same signal doesn't elicit synchronized backward swims or tail-waving among peers. These behaviors are not simply learned responses to a given stimulus. Statement4: Rather, dolphins are capable of higher cognitive functions that may include the use of language and forethought.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_2667",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Dolphins do not interact with humans the way they interact with one another.",
            "O": "Premise1: The dolphins often exhibit complex new responses to the hand signal.",
            "P": "Statement1: Sometimes when their trainer gives the hand signal for\" do something creative together, \" two dolphins circle a pool in tandem and then leap through the air simultaneously. On other occasions the same signal elicits synchronized backward swims or tail-waving. These behaviors are not simply learned responses to a given stimulus. Statement2: Rather, dolphins are capable of higher cognitive functions that may include the use of language and forethought."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Consumer advocate : in some countries, certain produce is routinely irradiated with gamma rays in order to extend shelf life. Statement2: There are, however, good reasons to avoid irradiated foods. Statement3: First, they are exposed to the radioactive substances that produce the gamma rays. Statement4: Second, irradiation can reduce the vitamin content of fresh foods, leaving behind harmful chemical residues. Statement5: Third, irradiation spawns unique radiolytic products that cause serious health problems, including cancer.\nPremise1: Cancer and other serious health problems have many causes that are unrelated to radioactive substances and gamma rays.\nPremise2: Unique radiolytic products have seldom been found in any irradiated food.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Consumer advocate : in some countries, certain produce is routinely irradiated with gamma rays in order to extend shelf life. Statement2: There are, however, good reasons to avoid irradiated foods. Statement3: First, they are exposed to the radioactive substances that produce the gamma rays. Statement4: Second, irradiation can reduce the vitamin content of fresh foods, leaving behind harmful chemical residues. Statement5: Third, irradiation spawns general radiolytic products that cause serious health problems, including cancer.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_599",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following, if true, weakens the consumer advocate's argument except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: Unique radiolytic products have seldom been found in any irradiated food.",
            "O": "Premise1: Cancer and other serious health problems have many causes that are unrelated to radioactive substances and gamma rays.",
            "P": "Statement1: Consumer advocate : in some countries, certain produce is routinely irradiated with gamma rays in order to extend shelf life. Statement2: There are, however, good reasons to avoid irradiated foods. Statement3: First, they are exposed to the radioactive substances that produce the gamma rays. Statement4: Second, irradiation can reduce the vitamin content of fresh foods, leaving behind harmful chemical residues. Statement5: Third, irradiation spawns unique radiolytic products that cause serious health problems, including cancer."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: A chimp who displays feelings of affection toward the other members of its social group is more likely to be defended by these group members from raiders outside of the group -- even at the risk of harm to these defenders -- than are those chimps who rarely or never display feelings of affection toward their associates. Statement2: This shows that, from a sociological perspective, affection plays the same role in chimp communities as in human communities, since humans are more willing to face risks to protect those toward whom they have feelings of affection.\nPremise1: Feelings of affection in chimp communities are at least sometimes reciprocated.\nPremise2: Expression of affection in chimps is limited to members of the social group to which they belong.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A chimp who displays feelings of affection toward the other members of its social group is always to be defended by these group members from raiders outside of the group -- even at the risk of harm to these defenders -- but other sort of animals who always display feelings of affection toward chimps don't be protected by chimps. Statement2: This shows that, feelings of affection towards others are not always reciprocated.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3490",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Expression of affection in chimps is limited to members of the social group to which they belong.",
            "O": "Premise1: Feelings of affection in chimp communities are at least sometimes reciprocated.",
            "P": "Statement1: A chimp who displays feelings of affection toward the other members of its social group is more likely to be defended by these group members from raiders outside of the group -- even at the risk of harm to these defenders -- than are those chimps who rarely or never display feelings of affection toward their associates. Statement2: This shows that, from a sociological perspective, affection plays the same role in chimp communities as in human communities, since humans are more willing to face risks to protect those toward whom they have feelings of affection."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Amateur gardeners who plant based on the phases of the moon tend to get better results than those who do not. Statement2: This seems surprising since the phases of the moon do not affect how plants grow. Statement3: An alternative practice often found among amateur gardeners is to plant during the first warm spell of spring, which leads to problems when a frost follows. Statement4: So, amateur gardeners who use the phases of the moon are less likely to lose plants to a frost.\nPremise1: Using the phases of the moon usually leads amateur gardeners to plant later in the spring than those planting at the first warm spell.\nPremise2: The phases of the moon affect whether a frost follows the first warm spell of spring.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Amateur gardeners who plant based on the phases of the moon tend to get better results than those who do not. Statement2: This is true since the phases of the moon do affect how plants grow. Statement3: An practice often found among amateur gardeners is to decide whether to plant during the first warm spell of spring based on the phase of the moon, which leads to problems when a frost follows. Statement4: So, amateur gardeners who use the phases of the moon really get better results.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_1007",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument requires assuming which one of the following?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The phases of the moon affect whether a frost follows the first warm spell of spring.",
            "O": "Premise1: Using the phases of the moon usually leads amateur gardeners to plant later in the spring than those planting at the first warm spell.",
            "P": "Statement1: Amateur gardeners who plant based on the phases of the moon tend to get better results than those who do not. Statement2: This seems surprising since the phases of the moon do not affect how plants grow. Statement3: An alternative practice often found among amateur gardeners is to plant during the first warm spell of spring, which leads to problems when a frost follows. Statement4: So, amateur gardeners who use the phases of the moon are less likely to lose plants to a frost."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Valitania's long-standing practice of paying high salaries to its elected politicians has had a disastrous effect on the level of integrity among politicians in that country. Statement2: This is because the prospect of earning a high salary is always attractive to anyone whose primary aim in life is to make money, so that inevitably the wrong people must have been attracted into valitanian politics : people who are more interested in making money than in serving the needs of the nation.\nPremise1: Most of those who are currently valitanian politicians could have obtained better-paid work outside politics.\nPremise2: Many valitanian candidates for elected office spend some of their own money to finance their campaigns.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Valitania's long-standing practice of financing the campaigns of candidates for elected office has had a disastrous effect on the level of integrity among politicians in that country\uff0cand candidates had not received any other finances. Statement2: This is because the prospect of earning a high salary is always attractive to anyone whose primary aim in life is to make money, so that inevitably the wrong people must have been attracted into valitanian politics : people who are more interested in making money than in serving the needs of the nation.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3553",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Many valitanian candidates for elected office spend some of their own money to finance their campaigns.",
            "O": "Premise1: Most of those who are currently valitanian politicians could have obtained better-paid work outside politics.",
            "P": "Statement1: Valitania's long-standing practice of paying high salaries to its elected politicians has had a disastrous effect on the level of integrity among politicians in that country. Statement2: This is because the prospect of earning a high salary is always attractive to anyone whose primary aim in life is to make money, so that inevitably the wrong people must have been attracted into valitanian politics : people who are more interested in making money than in serving the needs of the nation."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: There should be a greater use of gasohol. Statement2: Gasohol is a mixture of alcohol and gasoline, and has a higher octane rating and fewer carbon monoxide emissions than straight gasoline. Burning gasohol adds no more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than plants remove by photosynthesis.\nPremise1: Cars burn on the average slightly more gasohol per kilometer than they do gasoline.\nPremise2: Gasohol is cheaper to produce and hence costs less at the pump than gasoline.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: There should be a greater use of gasohol which more expensive than gasoline to produce. Statement2: Gasohol is a mixture of alcohol and gasoline, burn more per kilometer but fewer carbon monoxide emissions than straight gasoline. Burning gasohol adds no more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than plants remove by photosynthesis.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_3162",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following, if true, strengthens the argument above except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: Gasohol is cheaper to produce and hence costs less at the pump than gasoline.",
            "O": "Premise1: Cars burn on the average slightly more gasohol per kilometer than they do gasoline.",
            "P": "Statement1: There should be a greater use of gasohol. Statement2: Gasohol is a mixture of alcohol and gasoline, and has a higher octane rating and fewer carbon monoxide emissions than straight gasoline. Burning gasohol adds no more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than plants remove by photosynthesis."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: A mass of\" black water\" containing noxious organic material swept through laurel bay last year. Statement2: Some scientists believe that this event was a naturally occurring but infrequent phenomenon. Statement3: The black water completely wiped out five species of coral in the bay, including mounds of coral that were more than two centuries old. Statement4: Therefore, even if this black water phenomenon has struck the bay before, it did not reach last year's intensity at any time in the past two centuries.\nPremise1: The mounds of centuries-old coral that were destroyed were not in especially fragile condition just before the black water swept in last year.\nPremise2: Older specimens of coral in the bay were more vulnerable to damage from the influx of black water than were young specimens.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A mass of\" black water\" containing noxious organic material swept through laurel bay last year. Statement2: Some scientists believe that this event was a naturally occurring but infrequent phenomenon. Statement3: The black water harmed several corals in the bay, including some older and young coral specimens. Statement4: But, even after this black water phenomenon has harmed coral specimens, young coral specimens did not reach older specimens's intensity.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1330",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Older specimens of coral in the bay were more vulnerable to damage from the influx of black water than were young specimens.",
            "O": "Premise1: The mounds of centuries-old coral that were destroyed were not in especially fragile condition just before the black water swept in last year.",
            "P": "Statement1: A mass of\" black water\" containing noxious organic material swept through laurel bay last year. Statement2: Some scientists believe that this event was a naturally occurring but infrequent phenomenon. Statement3: The black water completely wiped out five species of coral in the bay, including mounds of coral that were more than two centuries old. Statement4: Therefore, even if this black water phenomenon has struck the bay before, it did not reach last year's intensity at any time in the past two centuries."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Oscar : sent2: emerging information technologies will soon make speed of information processing the single most important factor in the creation of individual, corporate, and national wealth. Statement2: Consequently, the division of the world into northern countries -- in general rich -- and southern countries -- in general poor -- will soon be obsolete. Statement3: Instead, there simply will be fast countries and slow countries, and thus a country's economic well-being will not be a function of its geographical position but just a matter of its relative success in incorporating those new technologies. Statement4: Sylvia : sent6: but the poor countries of the south lack the economic resources to acquire those technologies and will therefore remain poor. Statement5: The technologies will thus only widen the existing economic gap between north and south.\nPremise1: At least some of the rich countries of the north will be effective in incorporating new information technologies into their economies\nPremise2: There are technologies other than information technologies whose development could help narrow the existing economic gap between north and south\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Oscar : Statement2: Emerging information technologies will soon make speed of information processing the single most important factor in the creation of individual, corporate, and national wealth. Statement3: Consequently, the division of the world into northern countries -- in general rich -- and southern countries -- in general poor -- will soon be obsolete. Statement4: Instead, there simply will be fast countries and slow countries, and thus a country's economic well-being will not be a function of its geographical position but just a matter of its relative success in incorporating those new technologies. Statement5: Sylvia : Statement6: But the poor countries of the south lack the economic resources to acquire those information technologies and will therefore remain poor. Statement7: The other technologies may narrow the gap the existing economic gap between north and south.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1177",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Sylvia's reasoning depends on the assumption that",
            "Om": "Premise2: There are technologies other than information technologies whose development could help narrow the existing economic gap between north and south",
            "O": "Premise1: At least some of the rich countries of the north will be effective in incorporating new information technologies into their economies",
            "P": "Statement1: Oscar : sent2: emerging information technologies will soon make speed of information processing the single most important factor in the creation of individual, corporate, and national wealth. Statement2: Consequently, the division of the world into northern countries -- in general rich -- and southern countries -- in general poor -- will soon be obsolete. Statement3: Instead, there simply will be fast countries and slow countries, and thus a country's economic well-being will not be a function of its geographical position but just a matter of its relative success in incorporating those new technologies. Statement4: Sylvia : sent6: but the poor countries of the south lack the economic resources to acquire those technologies and will therefore remain poor. Statement5: The technologies will thus only widen the existing economic gap between north and south."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Political commentator : voters tend to elect the candidate whose visual image most evokes positive feelings. Statement2: Thus, laws designed to increase the fairness of elections should not allow one candidate to buy significantly more media exposure than any rival candidates can afford.\nPremise1: The tendency of a candidate's visual image to evoke positive feelings in voters at least sometimes increases as media exposure increases.\nPremise2: People have positive feelings toward election candidates only when they find the candidates' visual images familiar.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Political commentator : voters tend to elect the candidate who evokes positive feelings. Statement2: Thus, laws designed to increase the fairness of elections should not allow one candidate's visual image to be exposed too much in public to make it familiar.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2400",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the political commentator's argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: People have positive feelings toward election candidates only when they find the candidates' visual images familiar.",
            "O": "Premise1: The tendency of a candidate's visual image to evoke positive feelings in voters at least sometimes increases as media exposure increases.",
            "P": "Statement1: Political commentator : voters tend to elect the candidate whose visual image most evokes positive feelings. Statement2: Thus, laws designed to increase the fairness of elections should not allow one candidate to buy significantly more media exposure than any rival candidates can afford."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Robust crops not only withstand insect attacks more successfully than other crops, they are also less likely to be attacked in the first place, since insects tend to feed on weaker plants. Statement2: Killing insects with pesticides does not address the underlying problem of inherent vulnerability to damage caused by insect attacks. Statement3: Thus, a better way to reduce the vulnerability of agricultural crops to insect pest damage is to grow those crops in good soil -- soil with adequate nutrients, organic matter, and microbial activity.\nPremise1: Crops that are grown in good soil tend to be more robust than other crops.\nPremise2: Growing crops without the use of pesticides generally produces less robust plants than when pesticides are used.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Robust crops not only withstand insect attacks more successfully than other crops, they are also less likely to be attacked in the first place, since insects tend to feed on weaker plants. Statement2: But fighting insects without pesticides does not address the underlying problem of inherent vulnerability to damage caused by insect attacks. Statement3: Thus, a better way to reduce the vulnerability of agricultural crops to insect pest damage is to kill insects with pesticides.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3352",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Growing crops without the use of pesticides generally produces less robust plants than when pesticides are used.",
            "O": "Premise1: Crops that are grown in good soil tend to be more robust than other crops.",
            "P": "Statement1: Robust crops not only withstand insect attacks more successfully than other crops, they are also less likely to be attacked in the first place, since insects tend to feed on weaker plants. Statement2: Killing insects with pesticides does not address the underlying problem of inherent vulnerability to damage caused by insect attacks. Statement3: Thus, a better way to reduce the vulnerability of agricultural crops to insect pest damage is to grow those crops in good soil -- soil with adequate nutrients, organic matter, and microbial activity."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: To allay public concern about chemicals that are leaking into a river from a chemical company's long-established dump, a company representative said, \" federal law requires that every new chemical be tested for safety before it is put onto the market. Statement2: This is analogous to the federal law mandating testing of every pharmaceutical substance for safety. \"\nPremise1: Before the federal law requiring testing of nonpharmaceutical chemicals went into effect recently, there were 40, 000 such chemicals being manufactured, many of them dangerous.\nPremise2: Leakage from the dump has occurred in noticeable amounts only in the last few months.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: To allay public concern about chemicals that are leaking into a river from a chemical company's long-established dump, a company representative said, \" we have been deliberately documenting and controlling leaks for a long time, Statement2: These small leaks have proved to be negligible over time. \"",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1535",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the representative's implied argument that the public need not be concerned about the leak?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Leakage from the dump has occurred in noticeable amounts only in the last few months.",
            "O": "Premise1: Before the federal law requiring testing of nonpharmaceutical chemicals went into effect recently, there were 40, 000 such chemicals being manufactured, many of them dangerous.",
            "P": "Statement1: To allay public concern about chemicals that are leaking into a river from a chemical company's long-established dump, a company representative said, \" federal law requires that every new chemical be tested for safety before it is put onto the market. Statement2: This is analogous to the federal law mandating testing of every pharmaceutical substance for safety. \""
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Studies have shown that treating certain illnesses with treatment x produces the same beneficial changes in patients'conditions as treating the same illnesses with treatment y. furthermore, treatment x is quicker and less expensive than treatment y. thus, in treating these illnesses, treatment x should be preferred to treatment y.\nPremise1: Unlike treatment y, treatment x has produced harmful side effects in laboratory animals.\nPremise2: A third treatment, treatment z, is even quicker and less expensive than treatment x.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Studies have shown that treating certain illnesses with treatment x produces the same beneficial changes in patients'conditions as treating the same illnesses with treatment y. furthermore, treatment x is quicker and less expensive than treatment y. thus, in treating these illnesses, treatment x should be the most popular of all treatments..",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_4031",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: A third treatment, treatment z, is even quicker and less expensive than treatment x.",
            "O": "Premise1: Unlike treatment y, treatment x has produced harmful side effects in laboratory animals.",
            "P": "Statement1: Studies have shown that treating certain illnesses with treatment x produces the same beneficial changes in patients'conditions as treating the same illnesses with treatment y. furthermore, treatment x is quicker and less expensive than treatment y. thus, in treating these illnesses, treatment x should be preferred to treatment y."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: The corpus callosum -- the thick band of nerve fibers connecting the brain's two hemispheres -- of a musician is on average larger than that of a nonmusician. Statement2: The differences in the size of corpora callosa are particularly striking when adult musicians who began training around the age of seven are compared to adult nonmusicians. Statement3: Therefore, musical training, particularly when it begins at a young age, causes certain anatomic brain changes.\nPremise1: The corpora callosa of musicians, before they started training, do not tend to be larger than those of nonmusicians of the same age.\nPremise2: Musical training late in life does not cause anatomic changes to the brain.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The corpus callosum -- the thick band of nerve fibers connecting the brain's two hemispheres -- of a musician is on average larger than that of a nonmusician. Statement2: The differences in the size of corpora callosa are nearly the same when adult musicians who began training late in life are compared to adult nonmusicians. Statement3: Therefore, musical training, only when it begins at a young age, causes certain anatomic brain changes.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_301",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Musical training late in life does not cause anatomic changes to the brain.",
            "O": "Premise1: The corpora callosa of musicians, before they started training, do not tend to be larger than those of nonmusicians of the same age.",
            "P": "Statement1: The corpus callosum -- the thick band of nerve fibers connecting the brain's two hemispheres -- of a musician is on average larger than that of a nonmusician. Statement2: The differences in the size of corpora callosa are particularly striking when adult musicians who began training around the age of seven are compared to adult nonmusicians. Statement3: Therefore, musical training, particularly when it begins at a young age, causes certain anatomic brain changes."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Cholesterol, which is a known factor in coronary heart disease and stroke, needs a carrier, known as a lipoprotein, to transport it through the bloodstream. Statement2: Low-density lipoproteins ( ldls ) increase the risk of coronary heart disease and stroke, but we can tentatively conclude that high-density lipoproteins ( hdls ) help prevent coronary heart disease and stroke. Statement3: First, aerobic exercise increases one's level of hdls. Statement4: Second, hdl levels are higher in women than in men. Statement5: And both aerobic exercise and being female are positively correlated with lower risk of coronary heart disease and stroke.\nPremise1: Hdls are less easily removed from the bloodstream than are ldls.\nPremise2: Persons who are overweight tend to have a higher risk of early death due to coronary heart disease and stroke, and tend to have low levels of hdls.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Cholesterol, which is a known factor in coronary heart disease and stroke, needs a carrier, known as a lipoprotein, to transport it through the bloodstream. Statement2: Low-density lipoproteins ( ldls ) increase the risk of coronary heart disease and stroke, but we can tentatively conclude that high-density lipoproteins ( hdls ) help prevent coronary heart disease and stroke. Statement3: First, aerobic exercise increases one's level of hdls. Statement4: Second, hdl levels are higher in overweight people. Statement5: And both aerobic exercise and being overweight are positively correlated with lower risk of coronary heart disease and stroke.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_4041",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following, if true, strengthens the argument except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: Persons who are overweight tend to have a higher risk of early death due to coronary heart disease and stroke, and tend to have low levels of hdls.",
            "O": "Premise1: Hdls are less easily removed from the bloodstream than are ldls.",
            "P": "Statement1: Cholesterol, which is a known factor in coronary heart disease and stroke, needs a carrier, known as a lipoprotein, to transport it through the bloodstream. Statement2: Low-density lipoproteins ( ldls ) increase the risk of coronary heart disease and stroke, but we can tentatively conclude that high-density lipoproteins ( hdls ) help prevent coronary heart disease and stroke. Statement3: First, aerobic exercise increases one's level of hdls. Statement4: Second, hdl levels are higher in women than in men. Statement5: And both aerobic exercise and being female are positively correlated with lower risk of coronary heart disease and stroke."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Some plants have extremely sensitive biological thermometers. For example, the leaves of rhododendrons curl when the temperature of the air around them is below 0 degree c ( celsius ). Statement2: Similarly, mature crocus blossoms open in temperatures above 2 degree c. so someone who simultaneously observed rhododendrons with uncurled leaves, crocuses with mature but unopened blossoms, and a thermometer showing 1 degree c could determine that the thermometer's reading was accurate to within plus or minus 1 degree c.\nPremise1: Air temperature surrounding rhododendrons, which can grow 12 feet tall, is likely to differ from air temperature surrounding crocuses, which are normally only a few inches high, by more than 2 degree c, even if the two plants are growing side by side.\nPremise2: Certain types of thermometers that are commonly used to measure outdoor temperatures can be extremely accurate in moderate temperature ranges but much less accurate in warmer or colder temperature ranges.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Some plants have extremely sensitive biological thermometers. For example, the leaves of rhododendrons curl when the temperature of the air around them is below 30 degree c ( celsius ). Statement3: Similarly, mature crocus blossoms open in temperatures above 2 degree c. so someone who simultaneously observed rhododendrons with uncurled leaves, crocuses with mature but unopened blossoms outdoors and a thermometer showing 31 degree c could determine that the thermometer's reading was accurate to within plus or minus 1 degree c.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_261",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the reasoning above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Certain types of thermometers that are commonly used to measure outdoor temperatures can be extremely accurate in moderate temperature ranges but much less accurate in warmer or colder temperature ranges.",
            "O": "Premise1: Air temperature surrounding rhododendrons, which can grow 12 feet tall, is likely to differ from air temperature surrounding crocuses, which are normally only a few inches high, by more than 2 degree c, even if the two plants are growing side by side.",
            "P": "Statement1: Some plants have extremely sensitive biological thermometers. For example, the leaves of rhododendrons curl when the temperature of the air around them is below 0 degree c ( celsius ). Statement2: Similarly, mature crocus blossoms open in temperatures above 2 degree c. so someone who simultaneously observed rhododendrons with uncurled leaves, crocuses with mature but unopened blossoms, and a thermometer showing 1 degree c could determine that the thermometer's reading was accurate to within plus or minus 1 degree c."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: For the next year, the chefs'union has requested a 10 percent salary increase for each of its members, whereas the hotel managers'union has requested only an 8 percent salary increase for each of its members. Statement2: These facts demonstrate that the average dollar amount of the raises that the chefs'union has requested for next year is greater than that of the raises requested by the hotel managers'union.\nPremise1: The current salaries of the members of the chefs' union are, on average, higher than the current salaries of the members of the hotel managers' union.\nPremise2: The average dollar amount of the raises that the members of the chefs' union received last year was equal to the average dollar amount of the raises that the members of the hotel managers' union received.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: For the last year, the chefs'union had requested a 10 percent salary increase for each of its members, and the hotel managers'union had also requested a 10 percent salary increase for each of its members. Statement2: These facts demonstrate that the average salaries before salary increase of the chefs'union had requested for last year were equal to that of the hotel managers'union.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_2954",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The average dollar amount of the raises that the members of the chefs' union received last year was equal to the average dollar amount of the raises that the members of the hotel managers' union received.",
            "O": "Premise1: The current salaries of the members of the chefs' union are, on average, higher than the current salaries of the members of the hotel managers' union.",
            "P": "Statement1: For the next year, the chefs'union has requested a 10 percent salary increase for each of its members, whereas the hotel managers'union has requested only an 8 percent salary increase for each of its members. Statement2: These facts demonstrate that the average dollar amount of the raises that the chefs'union has requested for next year is greater than that of the raises requested by the hotel managers'union."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: It is often said that beauty is subjective. But this judgment has to be false. Statement2: If one tries to glean the standard of beauty of earlier cultures from the artistic works they considered most beautiful, one can not but be impressed by its similarity to our own standard. In many fundamental ways, what was considered beautiful in those cultures is still considered beautiful in our own time.\nPremise1: Our own standard of beauty was strongly influenced by our exposure to works that were considered beautiful in earlier cultures.\nPremise2: Few contemporary artists have been significantly exposed to the art of earlier cultures.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: It is often said that beauty is subjective. This judgment has to be true. Statement3: Contemporary people tries to glean the beauty of earlier cultures from the artistic works of earlier time, but they found they couldn't. In many fundamental ways, what was considered beautiful in those cultures isn't still considered beautiful in our own time.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_101",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Few contemporary artists have been significantly exposed to the art of earlier cultures.",
            "O": "Premise1: Our own standard of beauty was strongly influenced by our exposure to works that were considered beautiful in earlier cultures.",
            "P": "Statement1: It is often said that beauty is subjective. But this judgment has to be false. Statement2: If one tries to glean the standard of beauty of earlier cultures from the artistic works they considered most beautiful, one can not but be impressed by its similarity to our own standard. In many fundamental ways, what was considered beautiful in those cultures is still considered beautiful in our own time."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: When a group of people starts a company, the founders usually serve as sources both of funding and of skills in marketing, management, and technical matters. Statement2: It is unlikely that a single individual can both provide adequate funding and be skilled in marketing, management, and technical matters. Statement3: Therefore, companies founded by groups are more likely to succeed than companies founded by individuals.\nPremise1: New companies are more likely to succeed when their founders can provide adequate funding and skills in marketing, management, and technical abilities than if they must secure funding or skills from nonfounders.\nPremise2: A new company is more likely to succeed if every founding member contributes equally to the company's initial funding than if some members contribute more funds than others.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: When starts a company, the founders usually serve as sources funding Statement2: Typically, individual-founded companies get their initial funding from one person, and team-founded companies are funded by multiple people who contribute varying amounts of money. Statement3: Therefore, companies founded by individuals are more likely to succeed than companies founded by groups.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_306",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: A new company is more likely to succeed if every founding member contributes equally to the company's initial funding than if some members contribute more funds than others.",
            "O": "Premise1: New companies are more likely to succeed when their founders can provide adequate funding and skills in marketing, management, and technical abilities than if they must secure funding or skills from nonfounders.",
            "P": "Statement1: When a group of people starts a company, the founders usually serve as sources both of funding and of skills in marketing, management, and technical matters. Statement2: It is unlikely that a single individual can both provide adequate funding and be skilled in marketing, management, and technical matters. Statement3: Therefore, companies founded by groups are more likely to succeed than companies founded by individuals."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Politician : of the candidates running, thompson is the best person to lead this nation. Statement2: For one thing, thompson opposes higher taxes whereas the other candidates support them. Many would agree that anyone who opposes higher taxes will make a better leader than someone who supports them.\nPremise1: Opposing higher taxes is not a factor contributing to good leadership.\nPremise2: All of the past leaders who supported higher taxes performed their jobs adequately.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Politician : of the candidates running, thompson is the best person to lead this nation. Statement2: For one thing, thompson opposes higher taxes whereas the other candidates support them. Many would agree that anyone who opposes higher taxes will peform a better job than someone who supports them.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_4459",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the politician's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: All of the past leaders who supported higher taxes performed their jobs adequately.",
            "O": "Premise1: Opposing higher taxes is not a factor contributing to good leadership.",
            "P": "Statement1: Politician : of the candidates running, thompson is the best person to lead this nation. Statement2: For one thing, thompson opposes higher taxes whereas the other candidates support them. Many would agree that anyone who opposes higher taxes will make a better leader than someone who supports them."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Airport official : sent2: local residents have been complaining that night flights into plainsville airport disturb their sleep and should be sharply reduced in number. Statement2: This complaint is completely unreasonable-there have been night flights coming into the airport from the very beginning, twenty years ago, and these residents should have taken that fact into account when buying their homes.\nPremise1: The residents who are complaining have been in their current homes fewer than twenty years.\nPremise2: There are fewer night flights now than there were originally.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Airport official : Statement2: Local residents have been complaining that night flights into plainsville airport disturb their sleep and should be sharply reduced in number. Statement3: This complaint is completely unreasonable-there have been night flights coming into the airport from the very beginning, twenty years ago, but these residents never complained before, despite that night flights are even more.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3392",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption on which the airport argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: There are fewer night flights now than there were originally.",
            "O": "Premise1: The residents who are complaining have been in their current homes fewer than twenty years.",
            "P": "Statement1: Airport official : sent2: local residents have been complaining that night flights into plainsville airport disturb their sleep and should be sharply reduced in number. Statement2: This complaint is completely unreasonable-there have been night flights coming into the airport from the very beginning, twenty years ago, and these residents should have taken that fact into account when buying their homes."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Professor : unfortunately, pharmaceutical companies and other profit-driven institutions provide nearly all of the funding for the chemistry department's research. Moreover, unless we can secure more funding for basic science research, it is highly unlikely that any significant advances in basic research will come out of the department. Statement2: Thus, without increased funding from sources other than profit-driven institutions, the chemistry department is unlikely to gain the prestige that only achievements in basic science research confer.\nPremise1: The chemistry department's funding for basic science research is not likely to increase if its funding from sources other than profit-driven institutions does not increase.\nPremise2: If the chemistry department's prestige increases substantially, then it is highly likely that the department's funding from sources other than profit-driven institutions will subsequently increase.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Professor : unfortunately, pharmaceutical companies and other profit-driven institutions provide nearly all of the funding for the chemistry department's research. Moreover, unless we can secure more funding for basic science research, it is highly unlikely that the chemistry department to gain the prestige of achievements in basic scientific research. Statement3: Thus, without increased funding from sources other than profit-driven institutions, the chemistry department's funding for basic science research is unlikely to increase.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1119",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the professor's argument relies?",
            "Om": "Premise2: If the chemistry department's prestige increases substantially, then it is highly likely that the department's funding from sources other than profit-driven institutions will subsequently increase.",
            "O": "Premise1: The chemistry department's funding for basic science research is not likely to increase if its funding from sources other than profit-driven institutions does not increase.",
            "P": "Statement1: Professor : unfortunately, pharmaceutical companies and other profit-driven institutions provide nearly all of the funding for the chemistry department's research. Moreover, unless we can secure more funding for basic science research, it is highly unlikely that any significant advances in basic research will come out of the department. Statement2: Thus, without increased funding from sources other than profit-driven institutions, the chemistry department is unlikely to gain the prestige that only achievements in basic science research confer."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: An unusually severe winter occurred in europe after the continent was blanketed by a blue haze resulting from the eruption of the laki volcano in the european republic of iceland in the summer of 1984. sent2: thus, it is evident that major eruptions cause the atmosphere to become cooler than it would be otherwise.\nPremise1: A few months after el chichon's large eruption in april 1982, air temperatures throughout the region remained higher than expected, given the long-term weather trends.\nPremise2: Three months after an early springtime eruption in south america during the late nineteenth century, sea surface temperatures near the coast began to fall.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: An unusually severe summer occurred in south america after the eruption of the volcano in the south america in the summer of late nineteenth century. Statement2: Thus, it is evident that major eruptions cause the atmosphere to become hotter than it would be otherwise.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_2605",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Three months after an early springtime eruption in south america during the late nineteenth century, sea surface temperatures near the coast began to fall.",
            "O": "Premise1: A few months after el chichon's large eruption in april 1982, air temperatures throughout the region remained higher than expected, given the long-term weather trends.",
            "P": "Statement1: An unusually severe winter occurred in europe after the continent was blanketed by a blue haze resulting from the eruption of the laki volcano in the european republic of iceland in the summer of 1984. sent2: thus, it is evident that major eruptions cause the atmosphere to become cooler than it would be otherwise."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Commemorative plaques cast from brass are a characteristic art form of the benin culture of west africa. Statement2: Some scholars, noting that the oldest surviving plaques date to the 1400s, hypothesize that brass-casting techniques were introduced by the portuguese, who came to benin in 1485 a.d. but portuguese records of that expedition mention cast-brass jewelry sent to benin 's king from neighboring ife. Statement3: So it is unlikely that benin 's knowledge of brass casting derived from the portuguese.\nPremise1: The portuguese had no contact with ife until the 1500s.\nPremise2: As early as 1500 a. d., benin artists were making brass plaques incorporating depictions of europeans.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Commemorative plaques cast from brass are a characteristic art form of the benin culture of west africa. Statement2: Some scholars, noting that the oldest surviving plaques date to the 1400s, hypothesize that brass-casting techniques were introduced by the portuguese, who came to benin in 1584 a.d. but portuguese records of that expedition mention cast-brass jewelry sent to benin 's king from neighboring ife. Statement4: So it is unlikely that benin 's knowledge of brass casting derived from the portuguese.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_2779",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: As early as 1500 a. d., benin artists were making brass plaques incorporating depictions of europeans.",
            "O": "Premise1: The portuguese had no contact with ife until the 1500s.",
            "P": "Statement1: Commemorative plaques cast from brass are a characteristic art form of the benin culture of west africa. Statement2: Some scholars, noting that the oldest surviving plaques date to the 1400s, hypothesize that brass-casting techniques were introduced by the portuguese, who came to benin in 1485 a.d. but portuguese records of that expedition mention cast-brass jewelry sent to benin 's king from neighboring ife. Statement3: So it is unlikely that benin 's knowledge of brass casting derived from the portuguese."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Before the printing press, books could be purchased only in expensive manuscript copies. Statement2: The printing press produced books that were significantly less expensive than the manuscript editions. Statement3: The public's demand for printed books in the first years after the invention of the printing press was many times greater than demand had been for manuscript copies. Statement4: This increase demonstrates that there was a dramatic jump in the number of people who learned how to read in the years after publishers first started producing books on the printing press.\nPremise1: In the first years after the printing press was invented, printed books were purchased primarily by people who had always bought and read expensive manuscripts but could afford a greater number of printed books for the same money.\nPremise2: During the first years after the invention of the printing press, letter writing by people who wrote without the assistance of scribes or clerks exhibited a dramatic increase.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Before the printing press, books could be purchased only in manuscript copies. Statement2: The printing press produced books that were significantly more expensive than the manuscript editions. Statement3: The public's demand for printed books in the first years after the invention of the printing press was many times smaller than demand had been for manuscript copies. Statement4: This drop demonstrates that there was a dramatic jump in the number of people who learned how to write letters in the years after publishers first started producing books on the printing press.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_76",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following statements, if true, casts doubt on the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: During the first years after the invention of the printing press, letter writing by people who wrote without the assistance of scribes or clerks exhibited a dramatic increase.",
            "O": "Premise1: In the first years after the printing press was invented, printed books were purchased primarily by people who had always bought and read expensive manuscripts but could afford a greater number of printed books for the same money.",
            "P": "Statement1: Before the printing press, books could be purchased only in expensive manuscript copies. Statement2: The printing press produced books that were significantly less expensive than the manuscript editions. Statement3: The public's demand for printed books in the first years after the invention of the printing press was many times greater than demand had been for manuscript copies. Statement4: This increase demonstrates that there was a dramatic jump in the number of people who learned how to read in the years after publishers first started producing books on the printing press."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream, the better a person's lung function, as measured by the amount of air the person can expel in one second. The lung function of smokers is significantly worse, on average, than that of nonsmokers. Statement2: Clearly, therefore, one way for smokers to improve their lung function is for them to increase their intake of foods that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals.\nPremise1: Smoking does not introduce into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream.\nPremise2: Smokers are less likely than nonsmokers to have diets that are rich in vitamins and minerals.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream, the better a person's lung function, as measured by the amount of air the person can expel in one second. Smoking does introduce into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream. Statement3: Clearly, therefore, the lung function of smokers is significantly worse, on average, than that of nonsmokers.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1563",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption on which this argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Smokers are less likely than nonsmokers to have diets that are rich in vitamins and minerals.",
            "O": "Premise1: Smoking does not introduce into the body chemicals that prevent the helpful vitamins and minerals from entering the bloodstream.",
            "P": "Statement1: The higher the level of certain vitamins and minerals in the bloodstream, the better a person's lung function, as measured by the amount of air the person can expel in one second. The lung function of smokers is significantly worse, on average, than that of nonsmokers. Statement2: Clearly, therefore, one way for smokers to improve their lung function is for them to increase their intake of foods that are rich in these helpful vitamins and minerals."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: State spokesperson : many businesspeople who have not been to our state believe that we have an inadequate road system. Those people are mistaken, as is obvious from the fact that in each of the past six years, our state has spent more money per mile on road improvements than any other state.\nPremise1: Only states with seriously inadequate road systems need to spend large amounts of money on road improvements.\nPremise2: Adequacy of a state's road system is generally less important to a businessperson considering doing business there than is the availability of qualified employees.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: State spokesperson : many businesspeople who have been to our state believe that we have an adequate road system. Those people are right, as is obvious from the fact that in each of the past six years, more and more merchants are willing to do business here because of the adequate road system.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3834",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the reasoning in the spokesperson's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Adequacy of a state's road system is generally less important to a businessperson considering doing business there than is the availability of qualified employees.",
            "O": "Premise1: Only states with seriously inadequate road systems need to spend large amounts of money on road improvements.",
            "P": "Statement1: State spokesperson : many businesspeople who have not been to our state believe that we have an inadequate road system. Those people are mistaken, as is obvious from the fact that in each of the past six years, our state has spent more money per mile on road improvements than any other state."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Scientific research that involves international collaboration has produced papers of greater influence, as measured by the number of times a paper is cited in subsequent papers, than has research without any collaboration. Papers that result from international collaboration are cited an average of seven times, whereas papers with single authors are cited only three times on average. Statement2: This difference shows that research projects conducted by international research teams are of greater importance than those conducted by single researchers.\nPremise1: The number of citations a paper receives is a measure of the importance of the research it reports.\nPremise2: International research teams tend to be more generously funded than are single researchers.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Scientific research that involves international collaboration has produced papers of greater influence, as measured by the number of times a paper is cited in subsequent papers, than has research without any collaboration. Papers that result from international collaboration are cited an average of seven times, whereas papers with single authors are cited only three times on average. Statement3: This difference shows that research projects conducted by international research teams are are easier to get results than those conducted by single researchers.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1090",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: International research teams tend to be more generously funded than are single researchers.",
            "O": "Premise1: The number of citations a paper receives is a measure of the importance of the research it reports.",
            "P": "Statement1: Scientific research that involves international collaboration has produced papers of greater influence, as measured by the number of times a paper is cited in subsequent papers, than has research without any collaboration. Papers that result from international collaboration are cited an average of seven times, whereas papers with single authors are cited only three times on average. Statement2: This difference shows that research projects conducted by international research teams are of greater importance than those conducted by single researchers."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: A child learning to play the piano will not succeed unless the child has an instrument at home on which to practice. Statement2: However, good-quality pianos, whether new or secondhand, are costly. Statement3: Buying one is justified only if the child has the necessary talent and perseverance, which is precisely what one can not know in advance. Statement4: Consequently, parents should buy an inexpensive secondhand instrument at first and upgrade if and when the child's ability and inclination are proven.\nPremise1: Learners, particularly those with genuine musical talent, are apt to lose interest in the instrument if they have to play on a piano that fails to produce a pleasing sound.\nPremise2: Very young beginners often make remarkable progress at playing the piano at first, but then appear to stand still for a considerable period of time.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A child learning to play the piano will succeed if there are obvious effects when they are young. Statement2: Although, good-quality pianos, whether new or secondhand, are costly. Statement3: Buying one is justified if the child has the necessary talent and perseverance when they are young for good sound. Statement4: Consequently, parents should buy an expensive secondhand instrument at first.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1206",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the course of action recommended for parents?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Very young beginners often make remarkable progress at playing the piano at first, but then appear to stand still for a considerable period of time.",
            "O": "Premise1: Learners, particularly those with genuine musical talent, are apt to lose interest in the instrument if they have to play on a piano that fails to produce a pleasing sound.",
            "P": "Statement1: A child learning to play the piano will not succeed unless the child has an instrument at home on which to practice. Statement2: However, good-quality pianos, whether new or secondhand, are costly. Statement3: Buying one is justified only if the child has the necessary talent and perseverance, which is precisely what one can not know in advance. Statement4: Consequently, parents should buy an inexpensive secondhand instrument at first and upgrade if and when the child's ability and inclination are proven."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Film director : it is true that certain characters and plot twists in my newly released film the big heist are similar to characters and plot twists in thieves, a movie that came out last year. Statement2: Pointing to these similarities, the film studio that produced thieves is now accusing me of taking ideas from that film. The accusation is clearly without merit. Statement3: All production work on the big heist was actually completed months before thieves was released.\nPremise1: The characters and plot twists that are most similar in the two films have close parallels in many earlier films of the same genre.\nPremise2: Before thieves began production, its script had been circulating for several years among various film studios, including the studio that produced the big heist.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Film director : it is true that certain characters and plot twists in my newly released film the big heist are similar to characters and plot twists in thieves, a movie that came out last year. Statement2: Pointing to these similarities, the film studio that produced thieves is now accusing me of taking ideas from that film. The accusation is clearly with merit. Statement4: All production work on the big heist was not actually completed months before thieves was released.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_549",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest support for the directors position?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Before thieves began production, its script had been circulating for several years among various film studios, including the studio that produced the big heist.",
            "O": "Premise1: The characters and plot twists that are most similar in the two films have close parallels in many earlier films of the same genre.",
            "P": "Statement1: Film director : it is true that certain characters and plot twists in my newly released film the big heist are similar to characters and plot twists in thieves, a movie that came out last year. Statement2: Pointing to these similarities, the film studio that produced thieves is now accusing me of taking ideas from that film. The accusation is clearly without merit. Statement3: All production work on the big heist was actually completed months before thieves was released."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Because it was long thought that few people would watch lengthy televised political messages, most televised political advertisements, like commercial advertisements, took the form of short messages. Last year, however, one candidate produced a half-hour-long advertisement. At the beginning of the half-hour slot a substantial portion of the viewing public had tuned in to that station. Statement2: Clearly, then, many more people are interested in lengthy televised political messages than was previously thought.\nPremise1: The half-hour-long advertisement was aired during a time slot normally taken by one of the most popular prime-time shows.\nPremise2: The half-hour-long advertisement was widely publicized before it was broadcast.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Because it was long thought that few people would watch lengthy televised political messages, most televised political advertisements, like commercial advertisements, took the form of short messages. Last year, one candidate produced a half-hour-long advertisement. At the beginning of the half-hour slot only a small portion of the viewing public had tuned in to that station. Statement4: Clearly, then, less people are interested in lengthy televised political messages.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_2108",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The half-hour-long advertisement was widely publicized before it was broadcast.",
            "O": "Premise1: The half-hour-long advertisement was aired during a time slot normally taken by one of the most popular prime-time shows.",
            "P": "Statement1: Because it was long thought that few people would watch lengthy televised political messages, most televised political advertisements, like commercial advertisements, took the form of short messages. Last year, however, one candidate produced a half-hour-long advertisement. At the beginning of the half-hour slot a substantial portion of the viewing public had tuned in to that station. Statement2: Clearly, then, many more people are interested in lengthy televised political messages than was previously thought."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Fragments of charred antelope bone have recently been found at a million-year-old settlement of homo erectus, an early human species. Statement2: This discovery demonstrates that humans were making controlled use of fire to cook meat at a very early stage of their development.\nPremise1: The antelope bones were charred in a fire controlled by humans.\nPremise2: Early human settlements can be identified by the presence of charred antelope bones.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Fragments of charred antelope bone all have recently been found at many million-year-old settlements of homo erectus, an early human species. Statement2: This discovery demonstrates that the living environment of humans were closely related to the charred antelope bones at a very early stage of their development.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2407",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument above makes which of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Early human settlements can be identified by the presence of charred antelope bones.",
            "O": "Premise1: The antelope bones were charred in a fire controlled by humans.",
            "P": "Statement1: Fragments of charred antelope bone have recently been found at a million-year-old settlement of homo erectus, an early human species. Statement2: This discovery demonstrates that humans were making controlled use of fire to cook meat at a very early stage of their development."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: With seventeen casinos, moneyland operates the most casinos in a certain state. Although intent on expanding, it was outmaneuvered by apex casinos in negotiations to acquire the eldorado chain. Statement2: To complete its acquisition of eldorado, apex must sell five casinos to comply with a state law forbidding any owner to operate more than one casino per county. Statement3: Since apex will still be left operating twenty casinos in the state, it will then have the most casinos in the state.\nPremise1: Apex, eldorado, and moneyland are the only organizations licensed to operate casinos in the state.\nPremise2: Some of the state's counties do not permit casinos.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: With seventeen casinos, moneyland operates the most casinos in a certain state. Although intent on expanding, it was outmaneuvered by apex casinos in negotiations to acquire the eldorado chain. Statement3: To complete its acquisition of eldorado, apex must sell five casinos to comply with a state law forbidding any owner to operate more than one casino per county. Statement4: Since apex will still be left operating a casino in every county, it will then have the most casinos in the state.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_2048",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the prediction?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Some of the state's counties do not permit casinos.",
            "O": "Premise1: Apex, eldorado, and moneyland are the only organizations licensed to operate casinos in the state.",
            "P": "Statement1: With seventeen casinos, moneyland operates the most casinos in a certain state. Although intent on expanding, it was outmaneuvered by apex casinos in negotiations to acquire the eldorado chain. Statement2: To complete its acquisition of eldorado, apex must sell five casinos to comply with a state law forbidding any owner to operate more than one casino per county. Statement3: Since apex will still be left operating twenty casinos in the state, it will then have the most casinos in the state."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: The reforms to improve the quality of public education that have been initiated on the part of suppliers of public education have been insufficient. Therefore, reforms must be demanded by consumers. Statement2: Parents should be given government vouchers with which to pay for their children's education and should be allowed to choose the schools at which the vouchers will be spent. To attract students, academically underachieving schools will be forced to improve their academic offerings.\nPremise1: In selecting schools parents would tend to prefer a reasonable level of academic quality to greater sports opportunities or more convenient location\nPremise2: Children are able to recognize which schools are better and would influence their parents' decisions\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The reforms to improve the quality of public education that have been initiated on the part of suppliers of public education have been insufficient. Therefore, reforms must be demanded by consumers. Statement3: Parents should be given government vouchers with which to pay for their children's education and should be allowed to choose the schools at which the vouchers will be spent. Parents are more likely to be influenced by their children when choosing schools. To attract students, schools that are unpopular among students will be forced to improve their offerings.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_3847",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument assumes that",
            "Om": "Premise2: Children are able to recognize which schools are better and would influence their parents' decisions",
            "O": "Premise1: In selecting schools parents would tend to prefer a reasonable level of academic quality to greater sports opportunities or more convenient location",
            "P": "Statement1: The reforms to improve the quality of public education that have been initiated on the part of suppliers of public education have been insufficient. Therefore, reforms must be demanded by consumers. Statement2: Parents should be given government vouchers with which to pay for their children's education and should be allowed to choose the schools at which the vouchers will be spent. To attract students, academically underachieving schools will be forced to improve their academic offerings."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Infotek, a computer manufacturer in katrovia, has just introduced a new personal computer model that sells for significantly less than any other model. Statement2: Market research shows, however, that very few katrovian households without personal computers would buy a computer, regardless of its price. Statement3: Therefore, introducing the new model is unlikely to increase the number of computers in katrovian homes.\nPremise1: Katrovians in households that already have computers are unlikely to purchase the new infotek model as an additional computer for home use.\nPremise2: The main reason cited by consumers in katrovia for replacing a personal computer is the desire to have an improved model.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Infotek, a computer manufacturer in katrovia, has just introduced a improved personal computer model that sells for significantly less than any other model. Statement2: Market research shows, that more katrovian households without personal computers would often buy a improved models of computer, regardless of its price. Statement3: Therefore, introducing the improved model may increase the number of computers in katrovian homes.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4478",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The main reason cited by consumers in katrovia for replacing a personal computer is the desire to have an improved model.",
            "O": "Premise1: Katrovians in households that already have computers are unlikely to purchase the new infotek model as an additional computer for home use.",
            "P": "Statement1: Infotek, a computer manufacturer in katrovia, has just introduced a new personal computer model that sells for significantly less than any other model. Statement2: Market research shows, however, that very few katrovian households without personal computers would buy a computer, regardless of its price. Statement3: Therefore, introducing the new model is unlikely to increase the number of computers in katrovian homes."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Healthy lungs produce a natural antibiotic that protects them from infection by routinely killing harmful bacteria on airway surfaces. People with cystic fibroses, however, are unable to fight off such bacteria, even though their lungs produce normal amounts of the antibiotic. Statement2: Since the fluid on airway surfaces in the lungs of people with cystic fibrosis has an abnormally high salt concentration, scientists hypothesize that in high salt environments the antibiotic becomes ineffective at killing harmful bacteria.\nPremise1: The lungs of people who suffer from cystic fibrosis are unable to fight off harmful bacteria even when the salt concentration is reduced to levels typical of healthy lungs.\nPremise2: The antibiotic produced by the lungs is effective at killing harmful bacteria even when salt concentrations are below levels typical of healthy lungs.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Healthy lungs produce a natural antibiotic that protects them from infection by routinely killing harmful bacteria on airway surfaces. People with cystic fibroses, however, are unable to fight off such bacteria, even though their lungs produce normal amounts of the antibiotic. Statement3: Since the fluid on airway surfaces in the lungs of people with cystic fibrosis has an relatively low salt concentration, scientists hypothesize that in low salt environments the antibiotic becomes ineffective at killing harmful bacteria.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3173",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if it were obtained as an experimental result, would most decisively undermine the scientists' hypothesis?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The antibiotic produced by the lungs is effective at killing harmful bacteria even when salt concentrations are below levels typical of healthy lungs.",
            "O": "Premise1: The lungs of people who suffer from cystic fibrosis are unable to fight off harmful bacteria even when the salt concentration is reduced to levels typical of healthy lungs.",
            "P": "Statement1: Healthy lungs produce a natural antibiotic that protects them from infection by routinely killing harmful bacteria on airway surfaces. People with cystic fibroses, however, are unable to fight off such bacteria, even though their lungs produce normal amounts of the antibiotic. Statement2: Since the fluid on airway surfaces in the lungs of people with cystic fibrosis has an abnormally high salt concentration, scientists hypothesize that in high salt environments the antibiotic becomes ineffective at killing harmful bacteria."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: While sales of other highly fuel-efficient automobiles are in decline, sales of the hydro are rising. Statement2: The hydro's manufacturers attribute its success to the hydro's price and very low fuel consumption. Statement3: However, the hydro is comparable in price and fuel efficiency to its competitors, so it is more likely that its success is due to the fact that people want to appear environmentally conscious to their neighbors.\nPremise1: The hydro is recognizable as environmentally friendly in a way that its competitors are not.\nPremise2: Hydro buyers are more likely to have neighbors who also drive hydros.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: While sales of other highly fuel-efficient automobiles are in decline, sales of the hydro are far more best. Statement2: The hydro's manufacturers attribute its success to the hydro's price and very low fuel consumption. Statement3: However, the hydro is comparable in price and fuel efficiency to its competitors, so it is more likely that its success is due to the fact that people want to follow the trend of driving a hydro car.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3899",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Hydro buyers are more likely to have neighbors who also drive hydros.",
            "O": "Premise1: The hydro is recognizable as environmentally friendly in a way that its competitors are not.",
            "P": "Statement1: While sales of other highly fuel-efficient automobiles are in decline, sales of the hydro are rising. Statement2: The hydro's manufacturers attribute its success to the hydro's price and very low fuel consumption. Statement3: However, the hydro is comparable in price and fuel efficiency to its competitors, so it is more likely that its success is due to the fact that people want to appear environmentally conscious to their neighbors."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: The odds of winning any major lottery jackpot are extremely slight. However, the very few people who do win major jackpots receive a great deal of attention from the media. Statement2: Thus, since most people come to have at least some awareness of events that receive extensive media coverage, it is likely that many people greatly overestimate the odds of their winning a major jackpot.\nPremise1: Becoming aware of individuals who have won a major jackpot leads at least some people to incorrectly estimate their own chances of winning such a jackpot.\nPremise2: Very few people other than those who win major jackpots receive a great deal of attention from the media.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The odds of winning any major lottery jackpot are extremely slight. However, the very few people who do win major jackpots receive a great deal of attention from the media. Statement3: Thus, since most people want to receive a great deal of attention from the media, it is likely that many people eager for winning a major jackpot.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1468",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Very few people other than those who win major jackpots receive a great deal of attention from the media.",
            "O": "Premise1: Becoming aware of individuals who have won a major jackpot leads at least some people to incorrectly estimate their own chances of winning such a jackpot.",
            "P": "Statement1: The odds of winning any major lottery jackpot are extremely slight. However, the very few people who do win major jackpots receive a great deal of attention from the media. Statement2: Thus, since most people come to have at least some awareness of events that receive extensive media coverage, it is likely that many people greatly overestimate the odds of their winning a major jackpot."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: People who do regular volunteer work tend to live longer, on average, than people who do not. It has been found that\" doing good, \" a category that certainly includes volunteer work, releases endorphins, the brain 's natural opiates, which induce in people a feeling of well-being. Statement2: Clearly, there is a connection : regular releases of endorphins must in some way help to extend people 's lives.\nPremise1: People tend not to become involved in regular volunteer work unless they are healthy and energetic to begin with.\nPremise2: People who do regular volunteer work are only somewhat more likely than others to characterize the work they do for a living as \"doing good.\"\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: People who do regular volunteer, whether they are healthy or not, tend to live longer, on average, than people who do not. It has been found that\" doing good, \" induces in people a feeling of well-being, and doing volunteer work releases endorphins. Statement3: Clearly, there is a connection : regular releases of endorphins must in some way help to extend people 's lives.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3365",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence given as support for the hypothesis that endorphins promote longevity?",
            "Om": "Premise2: People who do regular volunteer work are only somewhat more likely than others to characterize the work they do for a living as \"doing good.\"",
            "O": "Premise1: People tend not to become involved in regular volunteer work unless they are healthy and energetic to begin with.",
            "P": "Statement1: People who do regular volunteer work tend to live longer, on average, than people who do not. It has been found that\" doing good, \" a category that certainly includes volunteer work, releases endorphins, the brain 's natural opiates, which induce in people a feeling of well-being. Statement2: Clearly, there is a connection : regular releases of endorphins must in some way help to extend people 's lives."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Fastmart, a convenience store chain, is planning to add pancake syrup to the items it sells. Statement2: Fastmart stores do not have shelf space to stock more than one variety of syrup. Surveys of fastmart customers indicate that one-fourth of them prefer low-calorie syrup, while three-fourths prefer regular syrup. Statement3: Since fastmart's highest priority is to maximize sales, the obvious strategy for it is to stock regular syrup.\nPremise1: In general, customers who prefer regular syrup will buy low-calorie syrup if regular is unavailable, but those who prefer low-calorie will not buy regular syrup.\nPremise2: People buying pancake syrup at convenience stores, unlike those buying it at supermarkets, generally buy it only a few times.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Fastmart, which owns supermarkets and convenience stores, is planning to add pancake syrup to the items it sells. Statement2: Fastmart stores do not have shelf space to stock more than one variety of syrup. Surveys of fastmart customers indicate that one-fourth of them prefer to buy syrup in the supermarket, while three-fourths prefer to buy syrup at convenience stores. Statement4: Since fastmart's highest priority is to maximize sales, the obvious strategy for it is to sell syrup in convenience stores.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_912",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: People buying pancake syrup at convenience stores, unlike those buying it at supermarkets, generally buy it only a few times.",
            "O": "Premise1: In general, customers who prefer regular syrup will buy low-calorie syrup if regular is unavailable, but those who prefer low-calorie will not buy regular syrup.",
            "P": "Statement1: Fastmart, a convenience store chain, is planning to add pancake syrup to the items it sells. Statement2: Fastmart stores do not have shelf space to stock more than one variety of syrup. Surveys of fastmart customers indicate that one-fourth of them prefer low-calorie syrup, while three-fourths prefer regular syrup. Statement3: Since fastmart's highest priority is to maximize sales, the obvious strategy for it is to stock regular syrup."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Modern navigation systems, which are found in most of today's commercial aircraft, are made with low-power circuitry, which is more susceptible to interference than the vacuum-tube circuitry found in older planes. Statement2: During landing, navigation systems receive radio signals from the airport to guide the plane to the runway. Statement3: Recently, one plane with low-power circuitry veered off course during landing, its dials dimming, when a passenger turned on a laptop computer. Statement4: Clearly, modern aircraft navigation systems are being put at risk by the electronic devices that passengers carry on board, such as cassette players and laptop computers.\nPremise1: Planes were first equipped with low-power circuitry at about the same time portable electronic devices became popular.\nPremise2: After the laptop computer was turned off, the plane regained course and its navigation instruments and dials returned to normal.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Modern navigation systems, which are found in most of today's commercial aircraft, are made with low-power circuitry, which is more susceptible to interference than the vacuum-tube circuitry found in older planes. Statement2: During landing, navigation systems receive radio signals from the airport to guide the plane to the runway. Statement3: Recently, one plane with low-power circuitry veered off course during landing, its dials dimming, and a passenger with a laptop computer is on the plane a laptop computer. Statement4: Clearly, modern aircraft navigation systems are being put at risk by the electronic devices that passengers carry on board, such as cassette players and laptop computers, although they are not turned off.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_3257",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, least strengthens the argument above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: After the laptop computer was turned off, the plane regained course and its navigation instruments and dials returned to normal.",
            "O": "Premise1: Planes were first equipped with low-power circuitry at about the same time portable electronic devices became popular.",
            "P": "Statement1: Modern navigation systems, which are found in most of today's commercial aircraft, are made with low-power circuitry, which is more susceptible to interference than the vacuum-tube circuitry found in older planes. Statement2: During landing, navigation systems receive radio signals from the airport to guide the plane to the runway. Statement3: Recently, one plane with low-power circuitry veered off course during landing, its dials dimming, when a passenger turned on a laptop computer. Statement4: Clearly, modern aircraft navigation systems are being put at risk by the electronic devices that passengers carry on board, such as cassette players and laptop computers."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Current maps showing the north american regions where different types of garden plants will flourish are based on weather data gathered 60 years ago from a few hundred primitive weather stations. Statement2: New maps are now being compiled using computerized data from several thousand modern weather stations and input from home gardeners across north america. Statement3: These maps will be far more useful.\nPremise1: Some of the weather stations currently in use are more than 60 years old.\nPremise2: Home gardeners can provide information on plant flourishing not available from weather stations.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Current maps showing the north american regions where different types of garden plants will flourish are based on weather data gathered 60 years ago from a few hundred primitive weather stations. Statement2: New maps are now being compiled using computerized data from several thousand modern weather stations and input from old weather stations across north america. Statement3: These maps will be far more useful.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_4361",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following, if true, helps to support the claim that the new maps will be more useful except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: Home gardeners can provide information on plant flourishing not available from weather stations.",
            "O": "Premise1: Some of the weather stations currently in use are more than 60 years old.",
            "P": "Statement1: Current maps showing the north american regions where different types of garden plants will flourish are based on weather data gathered 60 years ago from a few hundred primitive weather stations. Statement2: New maps are now being compiled using computerized data from several thousand modern weather stations and input from home gardeners across north america. Statement3: These maps will be far more useful."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Even the earliest known species of land animals, known from fossils dating from the late silurian period, 400 million years ago, show highly evolved adaptations to life on land. Statement2: Since neither aquatic nor amphibious animals exhibit these adaptations, early species of land animals must have evolved very rapidly after leaving an aquatic environment.\nPremise1: Known fossils of early land animals include fossils of animals that lived relatively soon after the first emergence of land animals.\nPremise2: Fossils from the late silurian period represent only a small number of the animal species that were alive at that time.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Even the earliest known species of land animals, known from fossils dating from the late silurian period, 400 million years ago, show highly evolved adaptations to life on land. Statement2: Since either aquatic or amphibious animals exhibit these adaptations, early species of land animals did not necessarily evolve very rapidly after leaving an aquatic environment.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3648",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Fossils from the late silurian period represent only a small number of the animal species that were alive at that time.",
            "O": "Premise1: Known fossils of early land animals include fossils of animals that lived relatively soon after the first emergence of land animals.",
            "P": "Statement1: Even the earliest known species of land animals, known from fossils dating from the late silurian period, 400 million years ago, show highly evolved adaptations to life on land. Statement2: Since neither aquatic nor amphibious animals exhibit these adaptations, early species of land animals must have evolved very rapidly after leaving an aquatic environment."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Most industrialized nations face the prospect of losing most of their manufacturing jobs to less-developed nations within the next few decades. Many of these nations will have a number of idle manufacturing facilities that will be unusable for other purposes. Statement2: To combat this future job loss and waste of resources, industrialized nations have to train their workers to be more productive.\nPremise1: If workers were more productive in industrialized nations, manufacturers would not move their jobs to less-developed nations.\nPremise2: If workers were trained in other fields, there would be no need to try to maintain manufacturing jobs in industrialized nations.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Most industrialized nations face the prospect of losing most of their manufacturing jobs within the next few decades. Many of these nations will have a number of idle manufacturing facilities that will be unusable for other purposes. Statement3: To combat this future job loss and waste of resources, industrialized nations have to forbid workers from being trained in other fields.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_4007",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following would most strengthen the above argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: If workers were trained in other fields, there would be no need to try to maintain manufacturing jobs in industrialized nations.",
            "O": "Premise1: If workers were more productive in industrialized nations, manufacturers would not move their jobs to less-developed nations.",
            "P": "Statement1: Most industrialized nations face the prospect of losing most of their manufacturing jobs to less-developed nations within the next few decades. Many of these nations will have a number of idle manufacturing facilities that will be unusable for other purposes. Statement2: To combat this future job loss and waste of resources, industrialized nations have to train their workers to be more productive."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Spokesperson : the major school lunch vendors recently agreed to stop selling high-calorie beverages in elementary and middle schools because studies show that children of ages 7 to 8 who substitute one low-calorie beverage for one high-calorie soft drink in their daily diets will, on average, weigh 20 pounds less than they would have by the time they reach high school. Statement2: Since only low-calorie beverages will be sold in schools, within six to eight years, we can expect to see a reduction in the percentage of overweight high-school children.\nPremise1: Elementary and middle school students who used to buy high-calorie soft drinks at school will not bring them to school or drink extra high-calorie beverages at home as a substitute.\nPremise2: All low-calorie beverages are better for children than any high-calorie beverages.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Spokesperson : the major school lunch vendors recently agreed to stop selling high-calorie beverages in elementary and middle schools because studies show that children of ages 7 to 8 who substitute one low-calorie beverage for one high-calorie soft drink in their daily diets will, on average, weigh 20 pounds less than they would have by the time they reach high school. Statement2: Considering the impact on children, schools should replace all high-calorie beverages sold with low-calorie beverages.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_1975",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The spokesperson assumes which of the following to be true?",
            "Om": "Premise2: All low-calorie beverages are better for children than any high-calorie beverages.",
            "O": "Premise1: Elementary and middle school students who used to buy high-calorie soft drinks at school will not bring them to school or drink extra high-calorie beverages at home as a substitute.",
            "P": "Statement1: Spokesperson : the major school lunch vendors recently agreed to stop selling high-calorie beverages in elementary and middle schools because studies show that children of ages 7 to 8 who substitute one low-calorie beverage for one high-calorie soft drink in their daily diets will, on average, weigh 20 pounds less than they would have by the time they reach high school. Statement2: Since only low-calorie beverages will be sold in schools, within six to eight years, we can expect to see a reduction in the percentage of overweight high-school children."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: People who browse the web for medical information often can not discriminate between scientifically valid information and quackery. Much of the quackery is particularly appealing to readers with no medical background because it is usually written more clearly than scientific papers. Statement2: Thus, people who rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good.\nPremise1: People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information.\nPremise2: Many people who browse the web assume that information is not scientifically valid unless it is clearly written.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: People who browse the web for medical information often can not discriminate between scientifically valid information and quackery. Much of the quackery is particularly appealing to readers with no medical background because it is usually written more clearly than scientific papers. Statement3: People who browse the internet generally think that the more clearly written the information, the more scientifically based it is.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2866",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption the argument requires?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Many people who browse the web assume that information is not scientifically valid unless it is clearly written.",
            "O": "Premise1: People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information.",
            "P": "Statement1: People who browse the web for medical information often can not discriminate between scientifically valid information and quackery. Much of the quackery is particularly appealing to readers with no medical background because it is usually written more clearly than scientific papers. Statement2: Thus, people who rely on the web when attempting to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: In many families adults speak to babies in simplified language. Yet constantly repeating simple phrases like\" nice kitty. See the kitty? \" Does not provide extra help to children in learning a language. Statement2: We know this because there are families in which no one speaks to babies this way, yet the children in these families master the grammatical structure of their language just as well and as quickly as other children do.\nPremise1: Any child who has mastered the grammatical structure of a language has learned the language.\nPremise2: Speaking to babies in simplified language could impair their language learning.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In many families adults speak to babies in simplified language. Yet constantly repeating simple phrases like\" nice kitty. See the kitty? \" Does not provide extra help to children in learning a language. Statement5: We know this because there are families in which no one speaks to babies this way, yet the children in these families master their language better and quicker than other children do.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2463",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Speaking to babies in simplified language could impair their language learning.",
            "O": "Premise1: Any child who has mastered the grammatical structure of a language has learned the language.",
            "P": "Statement1: In many families adults speak to babies in simplified language. Yet constantly repeating simple phrases like\" nice kitty. See the kitty? \" Does not provide extra help to children in learning a language. Statement2: We know this because there are families in which no one speaks to babies this way, yet the children in these families master the grammatical structure of their language just as well and as quickly as other children do."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Speaker : contemporary business firms need to recognize that avoiding social responsibility leads to the gradual erosion of power. This is davis and blomstrom's iron law of responsibility :\" in the long run, those who do not use power in a manner which society considers responsible will tend to lose it. \" Statement2: The law's application to human institutions certainly stands confirmed by history. Statement3: Though the\" long run\" may require decades or even centuries in some instances, society ultimately acts to reduce power when society thinks it is not being used responsibly. Statement4: Therefore, a business that wishes to retain its power as long as it can must act responsibly.\nPremise1: Public relations programs can cause society to consider an institution socially responsible even when it is not.\nPremise2: Since no institution is eternal, every business will eventually fail.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Speaker : contemporary business firms need to recognize that avoiding social responsibility leads to the gradual death of a company. This is davis and blomstrom's iron law of responsibility :\" in the long run, those who do not performing their responsibity which society considers belongs to them will tend to lose the trust from people\u2014the foundation of a company. \" Statement3: The law's application to human institutions certainly stands confirmed by history. Statement4: Though the\" long run\" may require decades or even centuries in some instances, society ultimately acts to abandon one when society thinks it is irresponsible. Statement5: Therefore, a business that wishes to succeed forever as long as it can fully perform it's social responsibility.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3960",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the speaker's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Since no institution is eternal, every business will eventually fail.",
            "O": "Premise1: Public relations programs can cause society to consider an institution socially responsible even when it is not.",
            "P": "Statement1: Speaker : contemporary business firms need to recognize that avoiding social responsibility leads to the gradual erosion of power. This is davis and blomstrom's iron law of responsibility :\" in the long run, those who do not use power in a manner which society considers responsible will tend to lose it. \" Statement2: The law's application to human institutions certainly stands confirmed by history. Statement3: Though the\" long run\" may require decades or even centuries in some instances, society ultimately acts to reduce power when society thinks it is not being used responsibly. Statement4: Therefore, a business that wishes to retain its power as long as it can must act responsibly."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: A recent study of perfect pitch -- the ability to identify the pitch of an isolated musical note -- found that a high percentage of people who have perfect pitch are related to someone else who has it. Statement2: Among those without perfect pitch, the percentage was much lower. Statement3: This shows that having perfect pitch is a consequence of genetic factors.\nPremise1: People who have relatives with perfect pitch generally receive no more musical training than do others.\nPremise2: People with perfect pitch are more likely than others to make sure that their children receive musical training.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A recent study of perfect pitch -- the ability to identify the pitch of an isolated musical note -- found that a high percentage of people who have perfect pitch have received musical training. Among the children of people who have perfect pitch, the percentage of having perfect pitch is higher than that of others. Statement2: Among those without perfect pitch, the percentage was much lower. Statement3: This shows that having perfect pitch is a consequence of musical training.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_775",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: People with perfect pitch are more likely than others to make sure that their children receive musical training.",
            "O": "Premise1: People who have relatives with perfect pitch generally receive no more musical training than do others.",
            "P": "Statement1: A recent study of perfect pitch -- the ability to identify the pitch of an isolated musical note -- found that a high percentage of people who have perfect pitch are related to someone else who has it. Statement2: Among those without perfect pitch, the percentage was much lower. Statement3: This shows that having perfect pitch is a consequence of genetic factors."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Since jackie is such a big fan of moral vacuum's music, she will probably like the cruel herd's new album. Statement2: Like moral vacuum, the cruel herd on this album plays complex rock music that employs the acoustic instrumentation and harmonic sophistication of early sixties jazz. Statement3: The cruel herd also has very witty lyrics, full of puns and sardonic humor, like some of moral vacuum's best lyrics.\nPremise1: Jackie has not previously cared for the cruel herd, but on the new album the cruel herd's previous musical arranger has been replaced by moral vacuum's musical arranger.\nPremise2: Jackie's favorite moral vacuum songs have lyrics that are somber and marked by a strong political awareness.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Since jackie is such a big fan of moral vacuum's music, she will probably like the cruel herd's new album. Statement2: Like moral vacuum, the cruel herd on this album has very witty lyrics, full of puns and sardonic humor. Statement3: The lyrics in the album are also strongly political like some of moral vacuum's best lyrics.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_2591",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Jackie's favorite moral vacuum songs have lyrics that are somber and marked by a strong political awareness.",
            "O": "Premise1: Jackie has not previously cared for the cruel herd, but on the new album the cruel herd's previous musical arranger has been replaced by moral vacuum's musical arranger.",
            "P": "Statement1: Since jackie is such a big fan of moral vacuum's music, she will probably like the cruel herd's new album. Statement2: Like moral vacuum, the cruel herd on this album plays complex rock music that employs the acoustic instrumentation and harmonic sophistication of early sixties jazz. Statement3: The cruel herd also has very witty lyrics, full of puns and sardonic humor, like some of moral vacuum's best lyrics."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Book publishers have traditionally published a few books that they thought were of intrinsic merit even though these books were unlikely to make a profit. Nowadays, however, fewer of these books are being published. Statement2: It seems, therefore, that publishers now, more than ever, are more interested in making money than in publishing books of intrinsic value.\nPremise1: There has been a notable decline in the quality of books written in recent years.\nPremise2: There have always been authors unwilling to be published unless a profit is guaranteed.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Authors have traditionally published a few books that they thought were of intrinsic merit. And in the past, these books would unexpectedly make a sizable profit. Nowadays, further more, more of these books are being published. Statement3: It seems, therefore, that authors now, more than ever, are more interested in publishing books of intrinsic value than in making money.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_2199",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: There have always been authors unwilling to be published unless a profit is guaranteed.",
            "O": "Premise1: There has been a notable decline in the quality of books written in recent years.",
            "P": "Statement1: Book publishers have traditionally published a few books that they thought were of intrinsic merit even though these books were unlikely to make a profit. Nowadays, however, fewer of these books are being published. Statement2: It seems, therefore, that publishers now, more than ever, are more interested in making money than in publishing books of intrinsic value."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a thousand years was recently claimed to be that of a much younger tree. Statement2: In order to rebut this charge, the craftsman summoned a team of dendrochronologists to prove that the tree lived to be at least to 1,000 years old. Statement3: Dendrochronology, or the technique of using tree rings to date wood, is based on the fact that for each passing year a tree develops exactly one ring, as seen in a horizontal cross-section of the trunk. Statement4: Given that dendrochronology is accurate for trees that lived less than 2,000 total years, the dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old.\nPremise1: The wood used in the table is large enough to contain a span of one thousand tree rings.\nPremise2: The tree was not less than 1, 000 years old when it was cut down.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a thousand years was recently claimed to be that of a much younger tree. Statement2: In order to rebut this charge, the craftsman summoned a team of dendrochronologists to prove that the tree lived to be at least to 1,000 years old. Statement3: Dendrochronology, or the technique of using tree rings to date wood, is based on the fact that for each passing year a tree develops exactly one ring, as seen in a horizontal cross-section of the trunk and the table is large enough to contain 2000 tree rings/ Statement4: Given that dendrochronology is accurate for trees that lived more than 2,000 total years, the dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3126",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption that the argument makes?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The tree was not less than 1, 000 years old when it was cut down.",
            "O": "Premise1: The wood used in the table is large enough to contain a span of one thousand tree rings.",
            "P": "Statement1: A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived a thousand years was recently claimed to be that of a much younger tree. Statement2: In order to rebut this charge, the craftsman summoned a team of dendrochronologists to prove that the tree lived to be at least to 1,000 years old. Statement3: Dendrochronology, or the technique of using tree rings to date wood, is based on the fact that for each passing year a tree develops exactly one ring, as seen in a horizontal cross-section of the trunk. Statement4: Given that dendrochronology is accurate for trees that lived less than 2,000 total years, the dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Employer : in the current economic climate, the best way to run a business is to pay employees the least amount possible to do the job. Statement2: The supply of labor is far outpacing demand since the number of college graduates increases every year and the average age of retirement is also increasing. Applicants will typically take the first job offer on the table, and any employee who demands a raise can be easily replaced from the labor pool. Statement3: Even if the employee is unhappy, he or she will often remain on the job due to the competition in the job market. Keeping payroll costs low allows more resources to be devoted to innovation, delivering a higher quality product to customers.\nPremise1: Automation is the leading cause for unemployment.\nPremise2: Training new employees costs more than giving existing employees a raise.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Employer : in the current economic climate, the best way to run a business is to pay employees the least amount possible to do the job. Statement2: The development of technology hasgreatly promoted the improvement of production, but not enough to replace human beings. Applicants will typically take the first job offer on the table, and any employee who demands a raise can be easily rejected. Statement4: Even if the employee is unhappy, he or she will often remain on the job. Keeping payroll costs low allows more resources to be devoted to innovation, delivering a higher quality product to customers.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_588",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following, if true, weakens the employer's argument except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: Training new employees costs more than giving existing employees a raise.",
            "O": "Premise1: Automation is the leading cause for unemployment.",
            "P": "Statement1: Employer : in the current economic climate, the best way to run a business is to pay employees the least amount possible to do the job. Statement2: The supply of labor is far outpacing demand since the number of college graduates increases every year and the average age of retirement is also increasing. Applicants will typically take the first job offer on the table, and any employee who demands a raise can be easily replaced from the labor pool. Statement3: Even if the employee is unhappy, he or she will often remain on the job due to the competition in the job market. Keeping payroll costs low allows more resources to be devoted to innovation, delivering a higher quality product to customers."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: The french novelist colette ( 1873-1954 ) has been widely praised for the vividness of her language. Statement2: But many critics complain that her novels are indifferent to important moral questions. This charge is unfair. Statement3: Each of her novels is a poetic condensation of a major emotional crisis in the life of an ordinary person of her time. Such emotional crises almost invariably raise important moral questions.\nPremise1: A novel that poetically condenses a major emotional crisis does not have to be indifferent to the important moral questions raised by that crisis.\nPremise2: Critics who suggest that colette's novels are indifferent to great moral questions of her time greatly underestimate her literary achievements.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The french novelist colette ( 1873-1954 ) has been widely praised for the vividness of her language. Statement2: But many critics complain her lacking great achievement, because her novels are indifferent to important moral questions. This charge is unfair. Statement4: Each of her novels is a poetic condensation of a major emotional crisis in the life of an ordinary person of her time. Such emotional crises have great literary achievement.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_569",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Critics who suggest that colette's novels are indifferent to great moral questions of her time greatly underestimate her literary achievements.",
            "O": "Premise1: A novel that poetically condenses a major emotional crisis does not have to be indifferent to the important moral questions raised by that crisis.",
            "P": "Statement1: The french novelist colette ( 1873-1954 ) has been widely praised for the vividness of her language. Statement2: But many critics complain that her novels are indifferent to important moral questions. This charge is unfair. Statement3: Each of her novels is a poetic condensation of a major emotional crisis in the life of an ordinary person of her time. Such emotional crises almost invariably raise important moral questions."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: If legislators are to enact laws that benefit constituents, they must be sure to consider what the consequences of enacting a proposed law will actually be. Concerned primarily with advancing their own political careers, legislators present legislation in polemical terms ; this arouses in their colleagues either repugnance or enthusiasm for the legislation. Statement2: Contemporary legislatures fail to enact laws that benefit constituents.\nPremise1: Legislators considering a proposed law for which they have repugnance or enthusiasm do not consider the consequences that it will actually have.\nPremise2: Legislatures that enact laws that benefit constituents are successful legislatures.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: If legislators are to enact laws that benefit constituents, they must be sure to consider what the consequences of enacting a proposed law will actually be. Concerned primarily with the interests of constituents, legislators present legislation in polemical terms ; this arouses in their colleagues appreciation for the legislation. Contemporary legislatures had enacted laws that benefit constituents. Statement2: Contemporary legislatures are successful legislatures.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2488",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Legislatures that enact laws that benefit constituents are successful legislatures.",
            "O": "Premise1: Legislators considering a proposed law for which they have repugnance or enthusiasm do not consider the consequences that it will actually have.",
            "P": "Statement1: If legislators are to enact laws that benefit constituents, they must be sure to consider what the consequences of enacting a proposed law will actually be. Concerned primarily with advancing their own political careers, legislators present legislation in polemical terms ; this arouses in their colleagues either repugnance or enthusiasm for the legislation. Statement2: Contemporary legislatures fail to enact laws that benefit constituents."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: The average cable television company offers its customers 50 channels, but new fiber-optic lines will enable telephone companies to provide 100 to 150 television channels to their customers for the same price as cable companies charge for 50. sent2: therefore, cable companies will be displaced by the new television services offered by telephone companies within a few years.\nPremise1: The most popular movies and programs on channels carried by cable companies will also be offered on channels carried by the fiberoptic lines owned by the telephone companies.\nPremise2: The initial cost per household of installing new fiber-optic television service will exceed the current cost of installing cable television service.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The average cable television company offers its customers 50 channels, and new fiber-optic lines will enable telephone companies to provide 100 to 150 television channels to their customers for higher price than cable companies charge for 50. Statement2: Therefore, cable companies won't be displaced by the new television services offered by telephone companies.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_303",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most helps to strengthen the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The initial cost per household of installing new fiber-optic television service will exceed the current cost of installing cable television service.",
            "O": "Premise1: The most popular movies and programs on channels carried by cable companies will also be offered on channels carried by the fiberoptic lines owned by the telephone companies.",
            "P": "Statement1: The average cable television company offers its customers 50 channels, but new fiber-optic lines will enable telephone companies to provide 100 to 150 television channels to their customers for the same price as cable companies charge for 50. sent2: therefore, cable companies will be displaced by the new television services offered by telephone companies within a few years."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Reporter : a team of scientists has recently devised a new test that for the first time accurately diagnoses autism in children as young as 18 months old. Statement2: When used to evaluate 16,000 children at their 18-month checkup, the test correctly diagnosed all 10 children later confirmed to be autistic, though it also wrongly identified 2 children as autistic. Statement3: Autistic children can therefore now benefit much earlier in life than before from the treatments already available.\nPremise1: A diagnostic test that sometimes falsely gives a positive diagnosis can still provide a reasonable basis for treatment decisions.\nPremise2: The new test can be used to evaluate all children, regardless of the level of development of their verbal skills.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Reporter : a team of scientists has recently devised a new test that for the first time accurately diagnoses autism in children as young as 18 months old and below. Statement3: When used to evaluate 16,000 children at their 18-month and below checkup, the test correctly diagnosed all 10 children later confirmed to be autistic in the past, the test for children's autism were basically only applicable to children over 18 months old. Statement4: Autistic children with weaker verbal skills can therefore now benefit much earlier in life than before from the treatments already available.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2234",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the reporter's argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The new test can be used to evaluate all children, regardless of the level of development of their verbal skills.",
            "O": "Premise1: A diagnostic test that sometimes falsely gives a positive diagnosis can still provide a reasonable basis for treatment decisions.",
            "P": "Statement1: Reporter : a team of scientists has recently devised a new test that for the first time accurately diagnoses autism in children as young as 18 months old. Statement2: When used to evaluate 16,000 children at their 18-month checkup, the test correctly diagnosed all 10 children later confirmed to be autistic, though it also wrongly identified 2 children as autistic. Statement3: Autistic children can therefore now benefit much earlier in life than before from the treatments already available."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: The excessive paperwork used to process claims at brakeland insurance company, not the increase in accident claims involving privately owned cars, is responsible for the declining profits at brakeland since the appointment of its new ceo. Statement2: Sterling auto insurance company has seen a similar increase in accidents among its insured vehicles, but while brakeland's profits have decreased, sterling's have increased in the same time period.\nPremise1: Individual policies traditionally account for the majority of brakeland's profits, while corporate policies have accounted for the majority of sterling's.\nPremise2: Sterling's customer-service approval ratings have always been higher than brakeland's.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The excessive paperwork used to process claims at brakeland insurance company, not the increase in accident claims involving privately owned cars, is responsible for the declining profits at brakeland since the appointment of its new ceo. Statement2: Sterling auto insurance company has seen a similar increase in accidents among its insured vehicles, therefore while brakeland's profits have decreased, sterling's will also decreased.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3462",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Sterling's customer-service approval ratings have always been higher than brakeland's.",
            "O": "Premise1: Individual policies traditionally account for the majority of brakeland's profits, while corporate policies have accounted for the majority of sterling's.",
            "P": "Statement1: The excessive paperwork used to process claims at brakeland insurance company, not the increase in accident claims involving privately owned cars, is responsible for the declining profits at brakeland since the appointment of its new ceo. Statement2: Sterling auto insurance company has seen a similar increase in accidents among its insured vehicles, but while brakeland's profits have decreased, sterling's have increased in the same time period."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: In kravonia, the average salary for jobs requiring a college degree has always been higher than the average salary for jobs that do not require a degree. Statement2: Over the last few years, the number of kravonians enrolled in college has been growing steadily. Statement3: Therefore, the number of kravonians entering the job market who have at least the qualification of a college degree will eventually be significantly higher than it has been over the last few years.\nPremise1: The average number of years kravonian college students remain enrolled before completing a degree has been increasing over the past several years.\nPremise2: Kravonians with more than one college degree earn little more, on average, than do kravonians with only one college degree.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In kravonia, the average salary for jobs requiring a college degree has always been higher than the average salary for jobs that do not require a degree. Statement2: Over the last few years, the number of kravonians enrolled in college has been growing steadily. Statement3: Therefore, kravonians entering the job market are tending to have more degress to get more salaries.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_403",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Kravonians with more than one college degree earn little more, on average, than do kravonians with only one college degree.",
            "O": "Premise1: The average number of years kravonian college students remain enrolled before completing a degree has been increasing over the past several years.",
            "P": "Statement1: In kravonia, the average salary for jobs requiring a college degree has always been higher than the average salary for jobs that do not require a degree. Statement2: Over the last few years, the number of kravonians enrolled in college has been growing steadily. Statement3: Therefore, the number of kravonians entering the job market who have at least the qualification of a college degree will eventually be significantly higher than it has been over the last few years."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Physician : hatha yoga is a powerful tool for helping people quit smoking. Statement2: In a clinical trial, those who practiced hatha yoga for 75 minutes once a week and received individual counseling reduced their smoking and cravings for tobacco as much as did those who went to traditional self-help groups once a week and had individual counseling.\nPremise1: Traditional self-help groups are powerful tools for helping people quit smoking.\nPremise2: Most smokers are able to practice hatha yoga more than once a week.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Physician : hatha yoga is a powerful tool for helping people quit smoking. Statement2: In a clinical trial, those who practiced hatha yoga for 75 minutes once a week and received individual counseling reduced their smoking and cravings for tobacco and hatha yoga does no harm to the health. So if hatha yoga is strongly recommended, the smoke quitting rate will be greatly improved.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4348",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the physician's argument relies?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Most smokers are able to practice hatha yoga more than once a week.",
            "O": "Premise1: Traditional self-help groups are powerful tools for helping people quit smoking.",
            "P": "Statement1: Physician : hatha yoga is a powerful tool for helping people quit smoking. Statement2: In a clinical trial, those who practiced hatha yoga for 75 minutes once a week and received individual counseling reduced their smoking and cravings for tobacco as much as did those who went to traditional self-help groups once a week and had individual counseling."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Some people have been promoting a new herbal mixture as a remedy for the common cold. Statement2: The mixture contains, among other things, extracts of the plants purple coneflower and goldenseal. Statement3: A cold sufferer, skeptical of the claim that the mixture is an effective cold remedy, argued, \" suppose that the mixture were an effective cold remedy. Since most people with colds wish to recover quickly, it follows that almost everybody with a cold would be using it. Statement4: Therefore, since there are many people who have colds but do not use the mixture, it is obviously not effective. \"\nPremise1: The mixture is powerful enough to prevent almost everybody who uses it from contracting any further colds.\nPremise2: There are no effective cold remedies available that many people who have colds prefer to the mixture.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Some people have been promoting a new herbal mixture as a remedy for the common cold. Statement2: The mixture contains, among other things, extracts of the plants purple coneflower and goldenseal. Statement3: A cold sufferer, in favor of the claim that the mixture is an effective cold remedy, said, \" the mixture were an effective cold remedy. Since most people with colds wish to recover quickly, it follows that almost everybody with a cold used it. Statement5: Consequently, almost everybody will not catch a cold again. \"",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4000",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following is an assumption required by the skeptical cold sufferer's argument except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: There are no effective cold remedies available that many people who have colds prefer to the mixture.",
            "O": "Premise1: The mixture is powerful enough to prevent almost everybody who uses it from contracting any further colds.",
            "P": "Statement1: Some people have been promoting a new herbal mixture as a remedy for the common cold. Statement2: The mixture contains, among other things, extracts of the plants purple coneflower and goldenseal. Statement3: A cold sufferer, skeptical of the claim that the mixture is an effective cold remedy, argued, \" suppose that the mixture were an effective cold remedy. Since most people with colds wish to recover quickly, it follows that almost everybody with a cold would be using it. Statement4: Therefore, since there are many people who have colds but do not use the mixture, it is obviously not effective. \""
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Manufacturing plants in arundia have recently been acquired in substantial numbers by investors from abroad. Statement2: Arundian politicians are proposing legislative action to stop such investment, justifying the proposal by arguing that foreign investors, opportunistically exploiting a recent fall in the value of the arundian currency, were able to buy arundian assets at less than their true value.\nPremise1: The true value of an investment is determined by the value of the profits from it, and the low value of the arundian currency has depressed the value of any profits earned by foreign investors from arundian assets.\nPremise2: In concordia, a country broadly similar to arundia, the share of manufacturing assets that is foreign- controlled is 60 percent higher than it is in arundia.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Manufacturing plants in arundia have recently been acquired in substantial numbers by investors from abroad. Statement2: Arundian politicians are proposing legislative action to stop such investment, justifying the proposal by arguing that it's abnormal that the share of manufacturing assets that is foreign- controlled is too high.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1186",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on the adequacy of the arundian politicians' justification for the proposed legislation?",
            "Om": "Premise2: In concordia, a country broadly similar to arundia, the share of manufacturing assets that is foreign- controlled is 60 percent higher than it is in arundia.",
            "O": "Premise1: The true value of an investment is determined by the value of the profits from it, and the low value of the arundian currency has depressed the value of any profits earned by foreign investors from arundian assets.",
            "P": "Statement1: Manufacturing plants in arundia have recently been acquired in substantial numbers by investors from abroad. Statement2: Arundian politicians are proposing legislative action to stop such investment, justifying the proposal by arguing that foreign investors, opportunistically exploiting a recent fall in the value of the arundian currency, were able to buy arundian assets at less than their true value."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Excavations of the roman city of sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species : a hare, a partridge, and various mediterranean fish. Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the sepphoris region when these mosaics were created. Statement2: Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other roman cities, however, the mosaics of sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the roman empire.\nPremise1: There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the roman empire were familiar.\nPremise2: No motifs appear in the sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other roman city.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Excavations of the roman city of sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species : a hare, a partridge, and various mediterranean fish. Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the sepphoris region when these mosaics were created. Statement3: Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other roman cities, however, the artisans of other roman cities did not interact with each other, and someone from other cities must have brought these animals to severis.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_253",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: No motifs appear in the sepphoris mosaics that do not also appear in the mosaics of some other roman city.",
            "O": "Premise1: There was not a common repertory of mosaic designs with which artisans who lived in various parts of the roman empire were familiar.",
            "P": "Statement1: Excavations of the roman city of sepphoris have uncovered numerous detailed mosaics depicting several readily identifiable animal species : a hare, a partridge, and various mediterranean fish. Oddly, most of the species represented did not live in the sepphoris region when these mosaics were created. Statement2: Since identical motifs appear in mosaics found in other roman cities, however, the mosaics of sepphoris were very likely created by traveling artisans from some other part of the roman empire."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: There have been no new cases of naturally occurring polio in north america in recent years. Statement2: Yet there are approximately 12 new cases of polio each year in north america, all caused by the commonly administered live oral polio vaccine ( opv ). Substituting inactivated polio vaccine ( ipv ) for most childhood polio immunizations would cut the number of cases of vaccination-caused polio about in half. Statement3: Clearly it is time to switch from opv to ipv as the most commonly used polio vaccine for north american children.\nPremise1: If ipv replaces opv as the most commonly used polio vaccine, at least a few new cases of naturally occurring polio in north america will result each year.\nPremise2: The vast majority of cases of polio caused by opv have occurred in children with preexisting but unsuspected immunodeficiency disorders.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: There have been no new cases of naturally occurring polio in north america in recent years. Statement2: Yet there are approximately 12 new cases of polio each year in north america, all caused by the commonly administered live oral polio vaccine ( opv ). Substituting inactivated polio vaccine ( ipv ) for most childhood polio immunizations would cut the number of cases of vaccination-caused polio about in half. Statement4: Clearly, new cases of non naturally occurring polio are only caused by opv.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1183",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The vast majority of cases of polio caused by opv have occurred in children with preexisting but unsuspected immunodeficiency disorders.",
            "O": "Premise1: If ipv replaces opv as the most commonly used polio vaccine, at least a few new cases of naturally occurring polio in north america will result each year.",
            "P": "Statement1: There have been no new cases of naturally occurring polio in north america in recent years. Statement2: Yet there are approximately 12 new cases of polio each year in north america, all caused by the commonly administered live oral polio vaccine ( opv ). Substituting inactivated polio vaccine ( ipv ) for most childhood polio immunizations would cut the number of cases of vaccination-caused polio about in half. Statement3: Clearly it is time to switch from opv to ipv as the most commonly used polio vaccine for north american children."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Tariffs on particular products tend to protect the small percentage of the population that works in industries that make those products while hurting everyone else through higher costs. Statement2: Polls show that in fact most people oppose such tariffs. Statement3: So politicians would be more likely to be reelected if they voted against these tariffs.\nPremise1: Supporters of tariffs on particular products are not significantly more likely than opponents to base their vote for a politician on the politician's stand on this issue.\nPremise2: Politicians should support only general tariffs, since such tariffs would be more widely popular with voters than tariffs on particular products.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Tariffs on general products tend to protect the large percentage of the population that works in industries that make those products while hurting everyone else through higher costs. Statement2: Polls show that in fact most people support such tariffs. Statement3: So politicians would be more likely to be reelected if they voted support general tariffs.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1455",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Politicians should support only general tariffs, since such tariffs would be more widely popular with voters than tariffs on particular products.",
            "O": "Premise1: Supporters of tariffs on particular products are not significantly more likely than opponents to base their vote for a politician on the politician's stand on this issue.",
            "P": "Statement1: Tariffs on particular products tend to protect the small percentage of the population that works in industries that make those products while hurting everyone else through higher costs. Statement2: Polls show that in fact most people oppose such tariffs. Statement3: So politicians would be more likely to be reelected if they voted against these tariffs."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Polls have shown that a higher percentage of graduating university students are against proposals to reduce government social services than are students entering their first year at a university. Statement2: These polls lead us to the conclusion that people with a university education are more likely to favor retaining or increasing the present level of government social services than are members of the overall population.\nPremise1: Polls of those who graduated from a university more than five years before being polled show a higher percentage of people in favor of reducing government social services than do polls of the overall population.\nPremise2: Polls of retired persons who have not graduated from a university show a higher percentage of persons in favor of reducing government social services than do polls of retired persons who have graduated from a university.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Polls have shown that a lower percentage of graduating university students are against proposals to reduce government social services than are students entering their first year at a university. Statement2: These polls lead us to the conclusion that people without a university education are more likely to favor retaining or increasing the present level of government social services than are members of the overall population.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1681",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Polls of retired persons who have not graduated from a university show a higher percentage of persons in favor of reducing government social services than do polls of retired persons who have graduated from a university.",
            "O": "Premise1: Polls of those who graduated from a university more than five years before being polled show a higher percentage of people in favor of reducing government social services than do polls of the overall population.",
            "P": "Statement1: Polls have shown that a higher percentage of graduating university students are against proposals to reduce government social services than are students entering their first year at a university. Statement2: These polls lead us to the conclusion that people with a university education are more likely to favor retaining or increasing the present level of government social services than are members of the overall population."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Travaillier corporation has recently hired employees with experience in the bus tour industry, and its executives have also been negotiating with charter bus companies that subcontract with bus tour companies. But travaillier has traditionally focused on serving consumers who travel primarily by air, and marketing surveys show that travaillier's traditional consumers have not changed their vacation preferences. Statement2: Therefore, travaillier must be attempting to enlarge its consumer base by attracting new customers.\nPremise1: The industry consultants employed by travaillier typically recommend that companies expand by introducing their current customers to new products and services.\nPremise2: In the past, travaillier has found it very difficult to change its customers' vacation preferences.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Travaillier corporation has recently hired employees with experience in the bus tour industry, and its executives have also been negotiating with charter bus companies that subcontract with bus tour companies. But travaillier has traditionally focused on serving consumers who travel primarily by air Statement3: Therefore, travaillier can change their customers' vacation preferences to make profits.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3757",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: In the past, travaillier has found it very difficult to change its customers' vacation preferences.",
            "O": "Premise1: The industry consultants employed by travaillier typically recommend that companies expand by introducing their current customers to new products and services.",
            "P": "Statement1: Travaillier corporation has recently hired employees with experience in the bus tour industry, and its executives have also been negotiating with charter bus companies that subcontract with bus tour companies. But travaillier has traditionally focused on serving consumers who travel primarily by air, and marketing surveys show that travaillier's traditional consumers have not changed their vacation preferences. Statement2: Therefore, travaillier must be attempting to enlarge its consumer base by attracting new customers."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Unprecedented industrial growth in the country of remo has created serious environmental problems because factories there lack adequate pollution-control systems. Remo is developing a clean growth plan that includes environmental regulations that will require the installation of such systems. Statement2: Since no companies in remo currently produce pollution-control systems, the plan, if implemented, will create significant opportunities for foreign exporters to market pollution-control systems.\nPremise1: The clean growth plan will provide tax incentives for local businesses to develop and manufacture pollution-control devices.\nPremise2: Industrial lobbyists sponsored by local businesses in remo are trying to prevent the implementation of the government regulations.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Unprecedented industrial growth in the country of remo has created serious environmental problems because factories there lack adequate pollution-control systems. Local government is developing a clean growth plan that includes environmental regulations that will require the installation of such systems. Statement3: Since no factories in remo currently is installed pollution-control systems, the plan, if implemented, will have a positive impact on the environment of remo.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_70",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Industrial lobbyists sponsored by local businesses in remo are trying to prevent the implementation of the government regulations.",
            "O": "Premise1: The clean growth plan will provide tax incentives for local businesses to develop and manufacture pollution-control devices.",
            "P": "Statement1: Unprecedented industrial growth in the country of remo has created serious environmental problems because factories there lack adequate pollution-control systems. Remo is developing a clean growth plan that includes environmental regulations that will require the installation of such systems. Statement2: Since no companies in remo currently produce pollution-control systems, the plan, if implemented, will create significant opportunities for foreign exporters to market pollution-control systems."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Economist : cheschem, a chemical manufacturer located in chester, uses natural gas for its enormous energy needs. Statement2: Currently, natural gas costs twice as much in chester as it does in tilsen. If the cost of natural gas in chester becomes more than twice that in tilsen, cheschem will move its manufacturing operations to tilsen. Statement3: So if the cost of natural gas in chester increases at all, cheschem will move its manufacturing operations to tilsen.\nPremise1: The price of natural gas in tilsen will not increase\nPremise2: Cheschem spends far more on natural gas than on any other expense\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Economist : cheschem, a chemical manufacturer located in chester, uses natural gas for its enormous energy needs. Statement2: Currently, natural gas costs twice as much in chester as it does in tilsen. If the cost of natural gas in chester becomes more than twice that in tilsen, cheschem will move its manufacturing operations to tilsen. Statement4: So if the cost of natural gas in chester increases to more than twice that in tilsen, cheschem will move its manufacturing operations to tilson, which will reduce the expense greatly.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_2276",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The economist's argument requires assuming that",
            "Om": "Premise2: Cheschem spends far more on natural gas than on any other expense",
            "O": "Premise1: The price of natural gas in tilsen will not increase",
            "P": "Statement1: Economist : cheschem, a chemical manufacturer located in chester, uses natural gas for its enormous energy needs. Statement2: Currently, natural gas costs twice as much in chester as it does in tilsen. If the cost of natural gas in chester becomes more than twice that in tilsen, cheschem will move its manufacturing operations to tilsen. Statement3: So if the cost of natural gas in chester increases at all, cheschem will move its manufacturing operations to tilsen."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: In the year following an eight-cent increase in the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes, sales of cigarettes fell ten percent. In contrast, in the year prior to the tax increase, sales had fallen one percent. Statement2: The volume of cigarette sales is therefore strongly related to the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes.\nPremise1: The information available to consumers on the health risks of smoking remained largely unchanged in the period before and after the tax increase.\nPremise2: During the year following the cigarette tax increase, many consumers had less income, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than they had had in the previous year.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In the year following an eight-cent increase in the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes, sales of cigarettes fell ten percent. In contrast, in the year without inflation prior to the tax increase, sales had fallen one percent. Statement3: The volume of cigarette sales is therefore strongly related to the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes and customer's income",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_1497",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: During the year following the cigarette tax increase, many consumers had less income, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than they had had in the previous year.",
            "O": "Premise1: The information available to consumers on the health risks of smoking remained largely unchanged in the period before and after the tax increase.",
            "P": "Statement1: In the year following an eight-cent increase in the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes, sales of cigarettes fell ten percent. In contrast, in the year prior to the tax increase, sales had fallen one percent. Statement2: The volume of cigarette sales is therefore strongly related to the after-tax price of a pack of cigarettes."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Bureaucrat : the primary, constant goal of an ideal bureaucracy is to define and classify all possible problems and set out regulations regarding each eventuality. Also, an ideal bureaucracy provides an appeal procedure for any complaint. Statement2: If a complaint reveals an unanticipated problem, the regulations are expanded to cover the new issue, and for this reason an ideal bureaucracy will have an everexpanding system of regulations.\nPremise1: An ideal bureaucracy will never be permanently without complaints about problems that are not covered by that bureaucracy's regulations.\nPremise2: Any complaint that an ideal bureaucracy receives will reveal an unanticipated problem that the bureaucracy is capable of defining and classifying.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Bureaucrat : the primary, constant goal of an ideal bureaucracy is to define and classify all possible problems and set out regulations regarding each eventuality. Also, an ideal bureaucracy provides an appeal procedure for any complaint. Statement3: If a complaint reveals an unanticipated problem, the regulations are expanded to cover the new issue, unless the bureaucracy is unable to define and classify this problem, and for this reason an ideal bureaucracy will have an everexpanding system of regulations.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2825",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption the bureaucrat's argument requires?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Any complaint that an ideal bureaucracy receives will reveal an unanticipated problem that the bureaucracy is capable of defining and classifying.",
            "O": "Premise1: An ideal bureaucracy will never be permanently without complaints about problems that are not covered by that bureaucracy's regulations.",
            "P": "Statement1: Bureaucrat : the primary, constant goal of an ideal bureaucracy is to define and classify all possible problems and set out regulations regarding each eventuality. Also, an ideal bureaucracy provides an appeal procedure for any complaint. Statement2: If a complaint reveals an unanticipated problem, the regulations are expanded to cover the new issue, and for this reason an ideal bureaucracy will have an everexpanding system of regulations."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Firms adopting\" profit-related-pay\" ( prp ) contracts pay wages at levels that vary with the firm's profits. Statement2: In the metalworking industry last year, firms with prp contracts in place showed productivity per worker on average 13 percent higher than that of their competitors who used more traditional contracts.\nPremise1: Many firms in the metalworking industry have modernized production equipment in the last five years, and most of these introduced prp contracts at the same time.\nPremise2: In firms in the metalworking industry where prp contracts are in place, the average take-home pay is 15 percent higher than it is in those firms where workers have more traditional contracts.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Firms adopting\" profit-related-pay\" ( prp ) contracts pay wages at levels that vary with the firm's profits. Statement2: In the metalworking industry last year, firms with prp contracts in place showed productivity per worker on average 13 percent higher than that of their competitors who had the same production equipment and used more traditional contracts.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_5",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "If, on the basis of the evidence above, it is argued that prp contracts increase worker productivity, which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken that argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: In firms in the metalworking industry where prp contracts are in place, the average take-home pay is 15 percent higher than it is in those firms where workers have more traditional contracts.",
            "O": "Premise1: Many firms in the metalworking industry have modernized production equipment in the last five years, and most of these introduced prp contracts at the same time.",
            "P": "Statement1: Firms adopting\" profit-related-pay\" ( prp ) contracts pay wages at levels that vary with the firm's profits. Statement2: In the metalworking industry last year, firms with prp contracts in place showed productivity per worker on average 13 percent higher than that of their competitors who used more traditional contracts."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Economist : countries with lower tax rates tend to have stronger economies. Statement2: Although higher taxes raise more revenue, highly taxed consumers have less disposable income. Statement3: An economy can never grow if consumers aren't able to purchase goods and services. Statement4: Therefore, the government should lower tax rates across the board.\nPremise1: Consumers' disposable income is directly related to their ability to purchase goods and services.\nPremise2: Economic growth is more important than supporting social welfare programs.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Economist : countries with lower tax rates tend to have stronger economies. Statement2: Although higher taxes raise the quality of public service of a country, highly taxed consumers don't have a better life for bad economy. Statement3: An economy can never grow if a government put it's focous on social wellfare. Statement4: Therefore, the government should lower tax rates across the board to accelerate the economic growth..",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_2479",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The economist's argument depends on assuming that:",
            "Om": "Premise2: Economic growth is more important than supporting social welfare programs.",
            "O": "Premise1: Consumers' disposable income is directly related to their ability to purchase goods and services.",
            "P": "Statement1: Economist : countries with lower tax rates tend to have stronger economies. Statement2: Although higher taxes raise more revenue, highly taxed consumers have less disposable income. Statement3: An economy can never grow if consumers aren't able to purchase goods and services. Statement4: Therefore, the government should lower tax rates across the board."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Columnist : computer voice-recognition technology currently can not distinguish between homophones such as\" their\" and\" there. \" Statement2: As a consequence, until voice-recognition technology is improved to recognize and utilize grammatical and semantic relations among words, voice-recognition programs will not accurately translate a computer user's spoken words into written text.\nPremise1: In order for computer voice-recognition technology to distinguish between homophones, it must be able to recognize grammatical and semantic relations among words.\nPremise2: Unless voice-recognition technology can distinguish between words that are homophones, it cannot recognize grammatical and semantic relations among words.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Columnist : computer voice-recognition technology currently can not distinguish between homophones such as\" their\" and\" there. \" Statement2: As a consequence, voice-recognition programs will not accurately translate a computer user's spoken words into written text with right grammatical and semantic relations.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2548",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the columnist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Unless voice-recognition technology can distinguish between words that are homophones, it cannot recognize grammatical and semantic relations among words.",
            "O": "Premise1: In order for computer voice-recognition technology to distinguish between homophones, it must be able to recognize grammatical and semantic relations among words.",
            "P": "Statement1: Columnist : computer voice-recognition technology currently can not distinguish between homophones such as\" their\" and\" there. \" Statement2: As a consequence, until voice-recognition technology is improved to recognize and utilize grammatical and semantic relations among words, voice-recognition programs will not accurately translate a computer user's spoken words into written text."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Electrical engineers have repeatedly demonstrated that the best solid-state amplifiers are indistinguishable from the best vacuum-tube amplifiers with respect to the characteristics commonly measured in evaluating the quality of an amplifier's musical reproduction. Statement2: Therefore, those music lovers who insist that recorded music sounds better when played with the best vacuum-tube amplifier than when played with the best solid-state amplifier must be imagining the difference in quality that they claim to hear.\nPremise1: Some of the characteristics that are important in determining how music sounds to a listener cannot be measured.\nPremise2: Many people cannot tell from listening to it whether a recording is being played with a very good solid-state amplifier or a very good vacuum-tube amplifier.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Electrical engineers have repeatedly demonstrated that the best solid-state amplifiers are distinguishable from the best vacuum-tube amplifiers with respect to the characteristics commonly measured in evaluating the quality of an amplifier's musical reproduction. Statement2: Therefore, those music lovers who insist that recorded music sounds better when played with the best vacuum-tube amplifier than when played with the best solid-state amplifier are not imagining the difference in quality that they claim to hear.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_750",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Many people cannot tell from listening to it whether a recording is being played with a very good solid-state amplifier or a very good vacuum-tube amplifier.",
            "O": "Premise1: Some of the characteristics that are important in determining how music sounds to a listener cannot be measured.",
            "P": "Statement1: Electrical engineers have repeatedly demonstrated that the best solid-state amplifiers are indistinguishable from the best vacuum-tube amplifiers with respect to the characteristics commonly measured in evaluating the quality of an amplifier's musical reproduction. Statement2: Therefore, those music lovers who insist that recorded music sounds better when played with the best vacuum-tube amplifier than when played with the best solid-state amplifier must be imagining the difference in quality that they claim to hear."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Salmonella is a food-borne microorganism that can cause intestinal illness. The illness is sometimes fatal, especially if not identified quickly and treated. Statement2: Conventional salmonella tests on food samples are slow and can miss unusual strains of the microorganism. Statement3: A new test identifies the presence or absence of salmonella by the one piece of genetic material common to all strains. Statement4: Clearly, public health officials would be well advised to replace the previous salmonella tests with the new test.\nPremise1: The new test returns results very soon after food samples are submitted for testing.\nPremise2: Salmonella poisoning is becoming less frequent in the general population.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Salmonella is a food-borne microorganism that can cause intestinal illness. The illness is not fatal, even if not identified quickly and treated. Statement3: Conventional salmonella tests on food samples are slow and can miss unusual strains of the microorganism. Statement4: A new test identifies the presence or absence of salmonella by the one piece of genetic material common to all strains. Statement5: Dispite that, public health officials no need to be well advised to replace the previous salmonella tests with the new test.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_3703",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Salmonella poisoning is becoming less frequent in the general population.",
            "O": "Premise1: The new test returns results very soon after food samples are submitted for testing.",
            "P": "Statement1: Salmonella is a food-borne microorganism that can cause intestinal illness. The illness is sometimes fatal, especially if not identified quickly and treated. Statement2: Conventional salmonella tests on food samples are slow and can miss unusual strains of the microorganism. Statement3: A new test identifies the presence or absence of salmonella by the one piece of genetic material common to all strains. Statement4: Clearly, public health officials would be well advised to replace the previous salmonella tests with the new test."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Press secretary : our critics claim that the president's recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts. Statement2: But all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. Statement3: So the president's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.\nPremise1: The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the president's party.\nPremise2: Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Press secretary : our critics claim that the president's recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts. Statement3: But all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. Statement4: However, the conclusion that the president's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics wasn't accepted by the opposition parties.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1723",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption on which the press secretary's argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.",
            "O": "Premise1: The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the president's party.",
            "P": "Statement1: Press secretary : our critics claim that the president's recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts. Statement2: But all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. Statement3: So the president's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Astronomer : in most cases in which a planet has been detected orbiting a distant star, the planet's orbit is distinctly oval, whereas the orbits of earth and several other planets around our sun are approximately circular. Statement2: However, many comets orbiting our sun have been thrown into oval orbits by close encounters with planets orbiting our sun. Statement3: So some of the planets in oval orbits around distant stars were probably thrown into those orbits by close encounters with other planets orbiting the same stars.\nPremise1: In most cases in which planets have been discovered orbiting a distant star, more than one planet has been found orbiting the star.\nPremise2: For each distant star that has been found to have a planet, no other object large enough to affect the planet's orbit has been found orbiting the star.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Astronomer : in most cases in which a planet has been detected orbiting a distant star, the planet's orbit is distinctly oval, whereas the orbits of earth and several other planets around our sun are approximately circular. Statement2: However, many comets orbiting our sun have been thrown into oval orbits by close encounters with planets orbiting our sun. Statement3: Nonetheless, all planets in oval orbits around distant stars were not thrown into those orbits by close encounters with other planets orbiting the same stars.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_3855",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the astronomer's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: For each distant star that has been found to have a planet, no other object large enough to affect the planet's orbit has been found orbiting the star.",
            "O": "Premise1: In most cases in which planets have been discovered orbiting a distant star, more than one planet has been found orbiting the star.",
            "P": "Statement1: Astronomer : in most cases in which a planet has been detected orbiting a distant star, the planet's orbit is distinctly oval, whereas the orbits of earth and several other planets around our sun are approximately circular. Statement2: However, many comets orbiting our sun have been thrown into oval orbits by close encounters with planets orbiting our sun. Statement3: So some of the planets in oval orbits around distant stars were probably thrown into those orbits by close encounters with other planets orbiting the same stars."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Activist : all drugs should be legalized. Statement2: Despite the current crackdown, the black market has filled the supply, ensuring that people can obtain any drug at any time, if desired. Statement3: The government currently incarcerates millions of nonviolent drug users at the cost of $ 50,000 per year per prisoner. This figure doesn't even take into account the financial burden placed on the police and judicial system. Statement4: Legalizing drugs would not only reduce the cost of law enforcement, but the drugs could also be taxed to generate revenue.\nPremise1: Legalizing drugs would raise government healthcare expenditures.\nPremise2: Legalizing drugs would increase the number of drug users.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Activist : all drugs should be legalized. Statement2: Despite the current crackdown, the black market has filled the supply, ensuring that people can obtain any drug at any time, if desired. Statement3: This crackdown does nothing to stop people who want to use drugs.. Statement5: Legalizing drugs would have no bad effect on peole.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_4492",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the activist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Legalizing drugs would increase the number of drug users.",
            "O": "Premise1: Legalizing drugs would raise government healthcare expenditures.",
            "P": "Statement1: Activist : all drugs should be legalized. Statement2: Despite the current crackdown, the black market has filled the supply, ensuring that people can obtain any drug at any time, if desired. Statement3: The government currently incarcerates millions of nonviolent drug users at the cost of $ 50,000 per year per prisoner. This figure doesn't even take into account the financial burden placed on the police and judicial system. Statement4: Legalizing drugs would not only reduce the cost of law enforcement, but the drugs could also be taxed to generate revenue."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Columnist : the relief from the drudgery of physical labor that much modern technology affords its users renders them dependent on this technology, and, more importantly, on the elaborate energy systems required to run it. Statement2: This leads to a loss of self-sufficiency. Statement3: Clearly, then, in addition to undermining life's charm, much modern technology diminishes the overall well-being of its users.\nPremise1: Self-sufficiency contributes to a person's wellbeing.\nPremise2: People are not free if they must depend on anything other than their own capacities.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Columnist : the relief from the drudgery of physical labor that much modern technology affords its users renders them dependent on this technology, and, more importantly, on the elaborate energy systems required to run it. Statement2: This leads to a loss of self-sufficiency. Statement3: Clearly, then, in addition to undermining life's charm, much modern technology takes away human freedom.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4154",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the columnist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: People are not free if they must depend on anything other than their own capacities.",
            "O": "Premise1: Self-sufficiency contributes to a person's wellbeing.",
            "P": "Statement1: Columnist : the relief from the drudgery of physical labor that much modern technology affords its users renders them dependent on this technology, and, more importantly, on the elaborate energy systems required to run it. Statement2: This leads to a loss of self-sufficiency. Statement3: Clearly, then, in addition to undermining life's charm, much modern technology diminishes the overall well-being of its users."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Surviving seventeenth-century dutch landscapes attributed to major artists now equal in number those attributed to minor ones. Statement2: But since in the seventeenth century many prolific minor artists made a living supplying the voracious market for dutch landscapes, while only a handful of major artists painted in the genre, many attributions of seventeenth-century dutch landscape paintings to major artists are undoubtedly erroneous.\nPremise1: Seventeenth-century art dealers paid minor artists extra money to leave their landscapes unsigned so that the dealers could add phony signatures and pass such works off as valuable paintings.\nPremise2: Technically gifted seventeenth-century dutch landscape artists developed recognizable styles that were difficult to imitate.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Surviving seventeenth-century dutch landscapes attributed to major artists who are technically gifted now are more than those attributed to minor ones. Statement2: Although in the seventeenth century many prolific minor artists made a living supplying the voracious market for dutch landscapes, while only a handful of major artists who are technically gifted painted in the genre, many attributions of seventeenth-century dutch landscape paintings to major artists are undoubtedly true.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_3693",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Technically gifted seventeenth-century dutch landscape artists developed recognizable styles that were difficult to imitate.",
            "O": "Premise1: Seventeenth-century art dealers paid minor artists extra money to leave their landscapes unsigned so that the dealers could add phony signatures and pass such works off as valuable paintings.",
            "P": "Statement1: Surviving seventeenth-century dutch landscapes attributed to major artists now equal in number those attributed to minor ones. Statement2: But since in the seventeenth century many prolific minor artists made a living supplying the voracious market for dutch landscapes, while only a handful of major artists painted in the genre, many attributions of seventeenth-century dutch landscape paintings to major artists are undoubtedly erroneous."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Paperback books wear out more quickly than hardcover books do, but paperback books cost much less. Statement2: Therefore, users of public libraries would be better served if public libraries bought only paperback books, since by so doing these libraries could increase the number of new book titles added to their collections without increasing their budgets.\nPremise1: Library users as a group depend on their public library for access to a wide variety of up-to-date reference books that are published in hardcover only.\nPremise2: Paperback books can very inexpensively have their covers reinforced in order to make them last longer.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Paperback books wear out more quickly than hardcover books do, although paperback books cost much less. Statement2: Therefore, users of public libraries would be better served if public libraries bought only hardcover books, since if not by so doing these libraries could not keep the book lasting long to their collections without increasing their budgets.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_454",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Paperback books can very inexpensively have their covers reinforced in order to make them last longer.",
            "O": "Premise1: Library users as a group depend on their public library for access to a wide variety of up-to-date reference books that are published in hardcover only.",
            "P": "Statement1: Paperback books wear out more quickly than hardcover books do, but paperback books cost much less. Statement2: Therefore, users of public libraries would be better served if public libraries bought only paperback books, since by so doing these libraries could increase the number of new book titles added to their collections without increasing their budgets."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: English and the austronesian language mbarbaram both use the word\" dog\" for canines. Statement2: These two languages are unrelated, and since speakers of the two languages only came in contact with one another long after the word\" dog\" was first used in this way in either language, neither language could have borrowed the word from the other. Statement3: Thus this case shows that sometimes when languages share words that are similar in sound and meaning the similarity is due neither to language relatedness nor to borrowing.\nPremise1: There is no third language from which both english and mbarbaram borrowed the word \"dog.\"\nPremise2: If two unrelated languages share a word, speakers of those two languages must have come in contact with one another at some time.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: English and the austronesian language mbarbaram both use the word\" dog\" for canines. Statement2: These two languages are unrelated, and since speakers of the two languages only came in contact with one another long after the word\" dog\" was first used in this way in either language, neither language could have borrowed the word from the other. Statement3: Thus this case shows that sometimes when languages share words and they are similar in sound and meaning the similarity is due not to language relatedness but their come in contact with each other at some time.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_1412",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument requires that which one of the following be assumed?",
            "Om": "Premise2: If two unrelated languages share a word, speakers of those two languages must have come in contact with one another at some time.",
            "O": "Premise1: There is no third language from which both english and mbarbaram borrowed the word \"dog.\"",
            "P": "Statement1: English and the austronesian language mbarbaram both use the word\" dog\" for canines. Statement2: These two languages are unrelated, and since speakers of the two languages only came in contact with one another long after the word\" dog\" was first used in this way in either language, neither language could have borrowed the word from the other. Statement3: Thus this case shows that sometimes when languages share words that are similar in sound and meaning the similarity is due neither to language relatedness nor to borrowing."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Insect infestations in certain cotton-growing regions of the world have caused dramatic increases in the price of cotton on the world market. By contrast, the price of soybeans has long remained stable. Statement2: Knowing that cotton plants mature quickly, many soybean growers in ortovia plan to cease growing soybeans and begin raising cotton instead, thereby taking advantage of the high price of cotton to increase their income significantly, at least over the next several years.\nPremise1: Tests of a newly developed, inexpensive pesticide have shown it to be both environmentally safe and effective against the insects that have infested cotton crops.\nPremise2: The cost of raising soybeans has increased significantly over the past several years and is expected to continue to climb.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Insect infestations in certain soybean-growing regions of the world have caused dramatic increases in the price of soybeans on the world market. By contrast, the price of cotton has long remained stable. Statement3: Knowing that soybeans plants mature quickly, many cotton growers in ortovia plan to cease growing cotton and begin raising soybeans instead, thereby taking advantage of the high price of soybeans to increase their income significantly, at least over the next several years.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_2940",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the plan's chances for success?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The cost of raising soybeans has increased significantly over the past several years and is expected to continue to climb.",
            "O": "Premise1: Tests of a newly developed, inexpensive pesticide have shown it to be both environmentally safe and effective against the insects that have infested cotton crops.",
            "P": "Statement1: Insect infestations in certain cotton-growing regions of the world have caused dramatic increases in the price of cotton on the world market. By contrast, the price of soybeans has long remained stable. Statement2: Knowing that cotton plants mature quickly, many soybean growers in ortovia plan to cease growing soybeans and begin raising cotton instead, thereby taking advantage of the high price of cotton to increase their income significantly, at least over the next several years."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Researcher : it is commonly believed that species belonging to the same biological order, such as rodents, descended from a single common ancestor. Statement2: However, i compared the genetic pattern in 3 rodent species -- guinea pigs, rats, and mice -- as well as in 13 nonrodent mammals, and found that while rats and mice are genetically quite similar, the genetic differences between guinea pigs and mice are as great as those between mice and some nonrodent species. Statement3: Thus, despite their similar physical form, guinea pigs stem from a separate ancestor.\nPremise1: Some pairs of species not having a common ancestor are genetically more similar to each other than are some pairs that do have a common ancestor.\nPremise2: Peculiarities of body structure, such as distinctive teeth and olfactory structures, are shared by all rodents, including guinea pigs.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Researcher : it is commonly believed that species belonging to the same biological order, such as rodents, descended from a single common ancestor. Statement2: However, i compared the genetic pattern in 3 species -- guinea pigs, rats, and mice -- as well as in 13 nonrodent mammals, and found that while rats and mice are genetically quite similar, the genetic differences between guinea pigs and mice are as great as those between mice and some nonrodent species. Statement3: Thus, despite their similar physical form, guinea pigs may not belong to rodent species.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_481",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the researcher's reasoning?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Peculiarities of body structure, such as distinctive teeth and olfactory structures, are shared by all rodents, including guinea pigs.",
            "O": "Premise1: Some pairs of species not having a common ancestor are genetically more similar to each other than are some pairs that do have a common ancestor.",
            "P": "Statement1: Researcher : it is commonly believed that species belonging to the same biological order, such as rodents, descended from a single common ancestor. Statement2: However, i compared the genetic pattern in 3 rodent species -- guinea pigs, rats, and mice -- as well as in 13 nonrodent mammals, and found that while rats and mice are genetically quite similar, the genetic differences between guinea pigs and mice are as great as those between mice and some nonrodent species. Statement3: Thus, despite their similar physical form, guinea pigs stem from a separate ancestor."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Marine biologists had hypothesized that lobsters kept together in lobster traps eat one another in response to hunger. Statement2: Periodic checking of lobster traps, however, has revealed instances of lobsters sharing traps together for weeks. Eight lobsters even shared one trap together for two months without eating one another. Statement3: The marine biologists'hypothesis, therefore, is clearly wrong.\nPremise1: Any food that the eight lobsters in the trap might have obtained was not enough to ward off hunger.\nPremise2: Lobsters not caught in lobster traps have been observed eating one another.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Marine biologists had hypothesized that lobsters kept together in lobster traps eat one another only in response to hunger. Statement2: Periodic checking of lobster traps, however, has revealed instances of lobsters sharing traps with enough food together less than a week. Eight lobsters even shared one trap together, and only one was left a week later. Statement4: The marine biologists'hypothesis, therefore, is clearly wrong.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2378",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument against the marine biologists' hypothesis is based on which one of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Lobsters not caught in lobster traps have been observed eating one another.",
            "O": "Premise1: Any food that the eight lobsters in the trap might have obtained was not enough to ward off hunger.",
            "P": "Statement1: Marine biologists had hypothesized that lobsters kept together in lobster traps eat one another in response to hunger. Statement2: Periodic checking of lobster traps, however, has revealed instances of lobsters sharing traps together for weeks. Eight lobsters even shared one trap together for two months without eating one another. Statement3: The marine biologists'hypothesis, therefore, is clearly wrong."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 strengthens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 strengthens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to strengthens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Loss of the gocha mangrove forests has caused coastal erosion, reducing fish populations and requiring the gocha fishing cooperative ( gfc ) to partially fund dredging and new shore facilities. Statement2: However, as part of its subsidiary businesses, the gfc has now invested in a program to replant significant parts of the coast with mangrove trees. Statement3: Given income from a controlled harvest of wood with continuing replanting, the mangrove regeneration effort makes it more likely that the cooperative will increase its net income.\nPremise1: Mangrove forests tend to increase the commercial fish populations in coastal fishing grounds.\nPremise2: The gfc derives 10 percent of its revenue from salt-production facilities in an area previously cleared of mangroves.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Loss of the gocha mangrove forests has caused coastal erosion, reducing fish populations and requiring the gocha fishing cooperative ( gfc ) to partially fund dredging and new shore facilities. Statement2: However, as part of its subsidiary businesses, the gfc has now invested in a program to replant significant parts of the coast with mangrove trees. Statement3: Given income from a controlled harvest of wood with continuing replanting which only account for 5% of the cooperative's revenue, the mangrove regeneration effort may not make it more likely that the cooperative will increase its net income.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_808",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument that mangrove replanting will increase the gocha cooperative's net income?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The gfc derives 10 percent of its revenue from salt-production facilities in an area previously cleared of mangroves.",
            "O": "Premise1: Mangrove forests tend to increase the commercial fish populations in coastal fishing grounds.",
            "P": "Statement1: Loss of the gocha mangrove forests has caused coastal erosion, reducing fish populations and requiring the gocha fishing cooperative ( gfc ) to partially fund dredging and new shore facilities. Statement2: However, as part of its subsidiary businesses, the gfc has now invested in a program to replant significant parts of the coast with mangrove trees. Statement3: Given income from a controlled harvest of wood with continuing replanting, the mangrove regeneration effort makes it more likely that the cooperative will increase its net income."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Editorial : in ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. Statement2: To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply. Statement3: However, the supplement will not raise any worker's income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Statement4: Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.\nPremise1: People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.\nPremise2: Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than ledland currently has.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Editorial : in ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. Statement2: To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply. Statement3: And also,, the government mandates the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee. Statement4: Therefore, unemployed people will like to be employed and the country's unemployment rate could decrease sharply.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3636",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true about ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than ledland currently has.",
            "O": "Premise1: People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.",
            "P": "Statement1: Editorial : in ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. Statement2: To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply. Statement3: However, the supplement will not raise any worker's income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Statement4: Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a necessary assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a necessary assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Because it was long thought that few people would watch lengthy televised political messages, most televised political advertisements, like commercial advertisements, took the form of short messages. Statement2: Last year, however, one candidate produced a half-hour-long advertisement. Statement3: During the half hour the advertisement was aired, a substantial portion of the viewing public tuned into the advertisement. Statement4: Clearly, then, many more people are interested in watching lengthy televised political messages than was previously thought.\nPremise1: Most of the viewers who tuned in to the candidate's half-hour-long advertisement last year did not change channels after the first few minutes.\nPremise2: Political advertisements have become increasingly influential in determining voters' decisions at the polls.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Because it was long thought that few people would watch lengthy televised political messages, most televised political advertisements, like commercial advertisements, took the form of short messages. Statement2: Last year, however, one candidate produced a half-hour-long advertisement. Statement3: During the half hour the advertisement was aired, a substantial portion of the viewing public tuned into the advertisement. Statement4: Clearly, then, candidate gains more votes who produces lengthy televised political messages than was previously thought.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2308",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Political advertisements have become increasingly influential in determining voters' decisions at the polls.",
            "O": "Premise1: Most of the viewers who tuned in to the candidate's half-hour-long advertisement last year did not change channels after the first few minutes.",
            "P": "Statement1: Because it was long thought that few people would watch lengthy televised political messages, most televised political advertisements, like commercial advertisements, took the form of short messages. Statement2: Last year, however, one candidate produced a half-hour-long advertisement. Statement3: During the half hour the advertisement was aired, a substantial portion of the viewing public tuned into the advertisement. Statement4: Clearly, then, many more people are interested in watching lengthy televised political messages than was previously thought."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to provides a sufficient assumption to the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Fossilized teeth of an extinct species of herbivorous great ape have on them phytoliths, which are microscopic petrified remains of plants. Statement2: Since only phytoliths from certain species of plants are found on the teeth, the apes'diet must have consisted only of those plants.\nPremise1: Plants of every type eaten by the apes left phytoliths on their teeth.\nPremise2: Each of the teeth examined had phytoliths of the same plant species on it as all the other teeth.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Fossilized teeth of an extinct species of herbivorous great ape have on them phytoliths, which are microscopic petrified remains of plants. Statement2: Since only phytoliths from certain species of plants are found on every teeth, the apes'diet must have consisted only of those plants.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_19",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument assumes which one of the following?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Each of the teeth examined had phytoliths of the same plant species on it as all the other teeth.",
            "O": "Premise1: Plants of every type eaten by the apes left phytoliths on their teeth.",
            "P": "Statement1: Fossilized teeth of an extinct species of herbivorous great ape have on them phytoliths, which are microscopic petrified remains of plants. Statement2: Since only phytoliths from certain species of plants are found on the teeth, the apes'diet must have consisted only of those plants."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Two lakes in the pawpaw mountains, quapaw and highwater, were suffering from serious declines in their fish populations ten years ago. Statement2: Since that time, there has been a moratorium on fishing at quapaw lake, and the fish population there has recovered. Statement3: At highwater lake, no such moratorium has been imposed, and the fish population has continued to decline. Statement4: Thus, the ban on fishing is probably responsible for the rebound in the fish population at quapaw lake.\nPremise1: Prior to the ban, there was practically no fishing at quapaw lake.\nPremise2: Highwater lake is in an area of the mountains that is highly susceptible to acid rain.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Two lakes in the pawpaw mountains, quapaw and highwater, were suffering from serious declines in their fish populations ten years ago. Statement2: Since that time, there has been a moratorium on fishing at quapaw lake, and the fish population there has recovered. Statement3: At highwater lake, no such moratorium has been imposed, and the fish population has continued to decline. Statement4: Thus, no fishing ban in place is fully responsible for the continuous reduction in the fish population at highwater lake.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_28",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Highwater lake is in an area of the mountains that is highly susceptible to acid rain.",
            "O": "Premise1: Prior to the ban, there was practically no fishing at quapaw lake.",
            "P": "Statement1: Two lakes in the pawpaw mountains, quapaw and highwater, were suffering from serious declines in their fish populations ten years ago. Statement2: Since that time, there has been a moratorium on fishing at quapaw lake, and the fish population there has recovered. Statement3: At highwater lake, no such moratorium has been imposed, and the fish population has continued to decline. Statement4: Thus, the ban on fishing is probably responsible for the rebound in the fish population at quapaw lake."
        }
    },
    {
        "instruction": "In the following, you will see an argument and 2 premises, where Premise 1 weakens the Argument. Please modify the Statements in the Argument until Premise 2 weakens the Argument instead, while Premise 1 fails to weakens the Argument. Note that no additional statement should be added. ",
        "input": "Argument: Statement1: Crops can be traded on the futures market before they are harvested. Statement2: If a poor corn harvest is predicted, prices of corn futures rise ; if a bountiful corn harvest is predicted, prices of corn futures fall. This morning meteorologists are predicting much-needed rain for the corn-growing region starting tomorrow. Statement3: Therefore, since adequate moisture is essential for the current crop's survival, prices of corn futures will fall sharply today.\nPremise1: Agriculture experts announced today that a disease that has devastated some of the corn crop will spread widely before the end of the growing season.\nPremise2: Corn that does not receive adequate moisture during its critical pollination stage will not produce a bountiful harvest.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Crops can be traded on the futures market before they are harvested. Statement2: If a poor corn harvest is predicted, prices of corn futures rise ; if a bountiful corn harvest is predicted, prices of corn futures fall. This morning meteorologists are predicting a severe drought in the corn-growing region starting tomorrow .but three days later there will be sufficient precipitation. In addition, the next three days are the critical period for corn pollination. Statement4: Therefore, since adequate moisture is essential for the current crop's survival, prices of corn futures will fall sharply today.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_59",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Corn that does not receive adequate moisture during its critical pollination stage will not produce a bountiful harvest.",
            "O": "Premise1: Agriculture experts announced today that a disease that has devastated some of the corn crop will spread widely before the end of the growing season.",
            "P": "Statement1: Crops can be traded on the futures market before they are harvested. Statement2: If a poor corn harvest is predicted, prices of corn futures rise ; if a bountiful corn harvest is predicted, prices of corn futures fall. This morning meteorologists are predicting much-needed rain for the corn-growing region starting tomorrow. Statement3: Therefore, since adequate moisture is essential for the current crop's survival, prices of corn futures will fall sharply today."
        }
    }
]